Asthma control in the United States: relationships between short-acting ß2-agonist and systemic corticosteroid use.

BACKGROUND: Asthma control assessment is based on impairment (current symptoms) and risk (exacerbation history). OBJECTIVE: To understand the extent of uncontrolled asthma, we assessed relationships between prescription fills for systemic corticosteroids (SCS) and short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA) as risk and impairment markers, respectively. METHODS: Annual SCS and SABA fills among US patients with asthma were evaluated by a retrospective analysis of IQVIA Longitudinal Access and Adjudication Data. Patient severity was assigned based on GINA step-therapy level. Exacerbations were evaluated by SCS fills within 12 months of a first asthma prescription fill. Uncontrolled asthma was defined as ≥2 SCS and/or ≥3 SABA fills annually. Individual patient relationships between SCS and SABA fills were assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: 4,506,527 patients were included: 15% had ≥2 SCS fills, 29% had ≥3 SABA fills, 37% fulfilled either or both criteria. If only SCS were assessed, 22% treated as mild-to-moderate and 27% as severe asthma would have been misclassified as controlled. If only SABA use was evaluated, 8% treated as mild-to-moderate and 11% as severe asthma would have been misclassified. Overall, 81% of uncontrolled asthma occurred in patients treated for mild-to-moderate disease. Among patients with ≥2 SCS fills, mean SABA fills were 2.9; the correlation between SCS and SABA fills per patient was significant but weak (r=0.18; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: High symptom burden and SCS exposures are not limited to severe asthma but are also characteristic in patients treated for mild-to-moderate disease. Both impairment and risk assessments are required to understand the full extent of uncontrolled asthma across disease severities.

MELTEMI and COLUMBA: 5-Year Comparative Safety Analysis of Benralizumab and Mepolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab and mepolizumab are IL-5Rα/IL-5-targeted monoclonal antibodies indicated as add-on treatments for patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the safety of benralizumab and mepolizumab among patients with SEA treated in MELTEMI and COLUMBA open-label, long-term extension studies, respectively. METHODS: MELTEMI was an extension study of benralizumab Q4W or Q8W for adults (aged 18-75 years) with SEA. MELTEMI participants transitioned from the BORA extension, preceded by participation in 1 of 3 placebo-controlled studies (SIROCCO, CALIMA, or ZONDA). COLUMBA was an extension study of mepolizumab for patients (aged ≥12 years) with SEA who transitioned from the dose-ranging DREAM study. Safety endpoints were presented as drug exposure patient years (MELTEMI, Q4W 784.28, Q8W 797.03; COLUMBA 1,201) for nonserious adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and infections; malignancies were counted numerically. RESULTS: This analysis included 446 MELTEMI patients (benralizumab Q4W, 220; benralizumab Q8W, 226) and 347 COLUMBA patients (mepolizumab Q4W). Viral upper respiratory tract infection was the most common nonserious AE in both studies (MELTEMI Q8W, 46.5%; Q4W, 47.3%; COLUMBA, 48.7%). Asthma-related events were the most common SAE in both studies: MELTEMI 8.0% (Q8W) and 8.6% (Q4W) and COLUMBA 9.5%. Serious infections included pneumonia (MELTEMI Q8W, 2 [0.9%]; COLUMBA, 6 [1.7%]); cellulitis (MELTEMI Q8W, 1 [0.4%]; COLUMBA, 2 [0.6%]); and respiratory tract infections (COLUMBA, 2 [0.6%]). COLUMBA reported 6 malignancies and MELTEMI reported 4 malignancies in each group. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated generally similar safety events between mepolizumab and benralizumab in patients with SEA.

Activated sputum eosinophils associated with exacerbations in children on mepolizumab.

BACKGROUND: MUPPITS-2 was a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that demonstrated mepolizumab (anti-IL-5) reduced exacerbations and blood and airway eosinophils in urban children with severe eosinophilic asthma. Despite this reduction in eosinophilia, exacerbation risk persisted in certain patients treated with mepolizumab. This raises the possibility that subpopulations of airway eosinophils exist that contribute to breakthrough exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effect of mepolizumab on airway eosinophils in childhood asthma. METHODS: Sputum samples were obtained from 53 MUPPITS-2 participants. Airway eosinophils were characterized using mass cytometry and grouped into subpopulations using unsupervised clustering analyses of 38 surface and intracellular markers. Differences in frequency and immunophenotype of sputum eosinophil subpopulations were assessed based on treatment arm and frequency of exacerbations. RESULTS: Median sputum eosinophils were significantly lower among participants treated with mepolizumab compared with placebo (58% lower, 0.35% difference [95% CI 0.01, 0.74], P = .04). Clustering analysis identified 3 subpopulations of sputum eosinophils with varied expression of CD62L. CD62Lint and CD62Lhi eosinophils exhibited significantly elevated activation marker and eosinophil peroxidase expression, respectively. In mepolizumab-treated participants, CD62Lint and CD62Lhi eosinophils were more abundant in participants who experienced exacerbations than in those who did not (100% higher for CD62Lint, 0.04% difference [95% CI 0.0, 0.13], P = .04; 93% higher for CD62Lhi, 0.21% difference [95% CI 0.0, 0.77], P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Children with eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab had significantly lower sputum eosinophils. However, CD62Lint and CD62Lhi eosinophils were significantly elevated in children on mepolizumab who had exacerbations, suggesting that eosinophil subpopulations exist that contribute to exacerbations despite anti-IL-5 treatment.

Targeting Asthma Remission as the Next Therapeutic Step Toward Improving Disease Control.

The long-term goal of asthma management is to achieve disease control, comprising the assessment of 2 main domains: (1) symptom control and (2) future risk of adverse outcomes. Decades of progress in asthma management have correlated with increasingly ambitious disease control targets. Moreover, the introduction of precision medicines, such as biologics, has further expanded the limits of what can be achieved in terms of disease control. It is now believed that clinical remission, a term rarely associated with asthma, may be an achievable treatment goal. An expert framework published in 2020 took the first step toward developing a commonly accepted definition of clinical remission in asthma. However, there remains a widespread discussion about the clinical parameters and thresholds that should be included in a standardized definition of clinical remission. This review aims to discuss on-treatment clinical remission as an aspirational outcome in asthma management, drawing on experiences from other chronic diseases where remission has long been a goal. We also highlight the integral role of shared decision-making between patients and health care professionals and the need for a common understanding of the individual patient journey to remission as foundational elements in reducing disease burden and improving outcomes for patients with asthma.

Shared genetic architecture of blood eosinophil counts and asthma in UK Biobank.

Rationale: Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous disease strongly associated with type 2 inflammation, and blood eosinophil counts guide therapeutic interventions in moderate and severe asthma. Eosinophils are leukocytes involved in type 2 immune responses. Despite these critical associations between asthma and blood eosinophil counts, the shared genetic architecture of these two traits remains unknown. The objective of the present study was to characterise the genetic architecture of blood eosinophil counts and asthma in the UK Biobank. Methods: We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of doctor-diagnosed asthma, blood eosinophil, neutrophil, lymphocyte and monocyte counts in the UK Biobank. Genetic correlation analysis was performed on GWAS results and validated in the Trans-National Asthma Genetic Consortium (TAGC) study of asthma. Results: GWAS of doctor-diagnosed asthma and blood eosinophil counts in the UK Biobank identified 585 and 3429 significant variants, respectively. STAT6, a transcription factor involved in interleukin-4 signalling, was a key shared pathway between asthma and blood eosinophil counts. Genetic correlation analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between doctor-diagnosed asthma and blood eosinophil counts (r=0.38±0.10, correlation±se; p=4.7×10-11). As a validation of this association, we found a similar correlation between TAGC and blood eosinophil counts in the UK Biobank (0.37±0.08, correlation±se; p=1.2×10-6). Conclusions: These findings define the shared genetic architecture between blood eosinophil counts and asthma risk in subjects of European ancestry and point to a genetic link to the STAT6 signalling pathway in these two traits.

iDESC: identifying differential expression in single-cell RNA sequencing data with multiple subjects.

BACKGROUND: Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) technology has enabled assessment of transcriptome-wide changes at single-cell resolution. Due to the heterogeneity in environmental exposure and genetic background across subjects, subject effect contributes to the major source of variation in scRNA-seq data with multiple subjects, which severely confounds cell type specific differential expression (DE) analysis. Moreover, dropout events are prevalent in scRNA-seq data, leading to excessive number of zeroes in the data, which further aggravates the challenge in DE analysis. RESULTS: We developed iDESC to detect cell type specific DE genes between two groups of subjects in scRNA-seq data. iDESC uses a zero-inflated negative binomial mixed model to consider both subject effect and dropouts. The prevalence of dropout events (dropout rate) was demonstrated to be dependent on gene expression level, which is modeled by pooling information across genes. Subject effect is modeled as a random effect in the log-mean of the negative binomial component. We evaluated and compared the performance of iDESC with eleven existing DE analysis methods. Using simulated data, we demonstrated that iDESC had well-controlled type I error and higher power compared to the existing methods. Applications of those methods with well-controlled type I error to three real scRNA-seq datasets from the same tissue and disease showed that the results of iDESC achieved the best consistency between datasets and the best disease relevance. CONCLUSIONS: iDESC was able to achieve more accurate and robust DE analysis results by separating subject effect from disease effect with consideration of dropouts to identify DE genes, suggesting the importance of considering subject effect and dropouts in the DE analysis of scRNA-seq data with multiple subjects.

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.

Differences in Mortality Among Patients With Asthma and COPD Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: Compare in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes among patients with asthma, COPD, and no airway disease. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 8,395 patients admitted with COVID-19 between March 2020 and April 2021. Airway disease diagnoses were defined using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes. Mortality and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores were compared among groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify and adjust for confounding clinical features associated with mortality. RESULTS: The median SOFA score in patients without airway disease was 0.32 and mortality was 11%. In comparison, asthma patients had lower SOFA scores (median 0.15; P < .01) and decreased mortality, even after adjusting for age, diabetes, and other confounders (odds ratio 0.65; P = .01). Patients with COPD had higher SOFA scores (median 0.86; P < .01) and increased adjusted odds of mortality (odds ratio 1.40; P < .01). Blood eosinophil count of 200 cells/µL or greater, a marker of type 2 inflammation, was associated with lower mortality across all groups. Importantly, patients with asthma showed improved outcomes even after adjusting for eosinophilia, indicating that noneosinophilic asthma was associated with protection as well. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 severity was increased in patients with COPD and decreased in those with asthma, eosinophilia, and noneosinophilic asthma, independent of clinical confounders. These findings suggest that COVID-19 severity may be influenced by intrinsic immunological factors in patients with airway diseases, such as type 2 inflammation.

Effect of tezepelumab on healthcare utilization in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma: The NAVIGATOR study.

BACKGROUND: Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin. In the phase 3 NAVIGATOR study, tezepelumab reduced exacerbations and improved lung function, asthma control, and health-related quality of life compared with placebo in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. However, little is known about the impact of tezepelumab on healthcare utilization (HCU) in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate to what extent tezepelumab reduces patients' HCU. METHODS: In NAVIGATOR, patients were randomized to receive subcutaneous tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo, every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. For this analysis, the main outcomes of interest were asthma-related HCU. A blinded, systematic analysis of the symptoms and HCU recorded in the investigator-reported narratives describing exacerbation-related hospitalizations was also conducted; the narratives included blinded ratings of event intensity, recorded as mild, moderate, or severe. RESULTS: Recipients of tezepelumab (n = 528) required fewer asthma-related unscheduled specialist visits (tezepelumab, 285 events; placebo, 406 events), telephone calls with a healthcare provider (tezepelumab, 234; placebo, 599), ambulance transports (tezepelumab, 5; placebo, 22), emergency department visits (without subsequent hospitalization; tezepelumab, 16; placebo, 37), hospitalizations (tezepelumab, 14; placebo, 78), and intensive care days (tezepelumab, 0; placebo, 31) than did recipients of placebo (n = 531). Among patients with asthma exacerbation-related hospitalizations, 38% of those hospitalized and receiving tezepelumab (5/13) had an event rated as severe, compared with 82% of those hospitalized and receiving placebo (32/39). CONCLUSION: Tezepelumab substantially reduced HCU across all outcomes measured compared with placebo, in addition to the severity of asthma exacerbations requiring hospitalization. Tezepelumab can reduce the overall burden of disease of severe, uncontrolled asthma. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home), identifier: NCT03347279.

Remission outcomes in severe eosinophilic asthma with mepolizumab therapy: Analysis of the REDES study.

Introduction: Clinical remission as a multicomponent treatment goal in severe asthma is being explored in clinical practice. This post hoc analysis used data from the REDES study to assess the proportion of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma achieving our multicomponent definitions of clinical remission after 1 year of mepolizumab treatment. Methods: The real-world, retrospective observational REDES study enrolled patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab and with ≥12 months of medical records pre-enrolment. Multicomponent clinical remission was defined as: oral corticosteroid (OCS)-free; exacerbation-free; asthma control test (ACT) score ≥20; and with or without post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second ≥80%. Baseline characteristics were also assessed in those who did/did not achieve clinical remission. Results: 37% and 30% of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma met our proposed three- and four-component on-treatment clinical remission definitions; an increase from 2% and 3% at baseline. Most frequently achieved individual components of clinical remission were: OCS-free; ACT score ≥20. For patients fulfilling the multicomponent clinical remission definitions, at baseline we observed higher blood eosinophil counts, better ACT scores and lung function, lower maintenance OCS use, and a slightly lower rate of prior exacerbations versus those who did not. Discussion: Clinical remission is a realistic target in clinical practice for a subset of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma receiving mepolizumab. Further studies are required to elucidate whether features linked to the underlying endotype can help predict treatment outcomes, increase rates of clinical remission, and potentially modify disease progression.

Dupilumab improves long-term outcomes in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe GINA-based type 2 asthma, irrespective of allergic status.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown greater efficacy of dupilumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma and type 2 inflammation. We analyzed dupilumab's efficacy in patients from the TRAVERSE study with or without evidence of allergic asthma and type 2 inflammation per current GINA guidelines (≥150 eosinophils/µL or FeNO ≥20 ppb). METHODS: All patients aged ≥12 years who rolled over from the placebo-controlled QUEST study (NCT02414854) to TRAVERSE (NCT02134028) received add-on dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks for up to 96 weeks. We assessed annualized severe asthma exacerbation rates (AERs) and changes from parent-study baseline (PSBL) in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and 5-item asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5) score in patients with moderate-to-severe type 2 asthma with and without evidence of allergic asthma at PSBL. RESULTS: In TRAVERSE, dupilumab consistently reduced AER across all subgroups. By Week 96, dupilumab increased pre-bronchodilator FEV1 from PSBL by 0.35-0.41 L in patients receiving placebo during QUEST (placebo/dupilumab) and 0.34-0.44 L in those receiving dupilumab during QUEST (dupilumab/dupilumab) with an allergic phenotype at baseline. In patients without evidence of allergic asthma, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 improved by 0.38-0.41 L and 0.33-0.37 L, respectively. By Week 48, ACQ-5 scores decreased from PSBL by 1.63-1.69 (placebo/dupilumab) and 1.74-1.81 (dupilumab/dupilumab) points across subgroups with allergic asthma, and 1.75-1.83 (placebo/dupilumab) and 1.78-1.86 (dupilumab/dupilumab) in those without. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with dupilumab reduced exacerbation rates and improved lung function and asthma control in patients with asthma with type 2 inflammation as per current GINA guidance and irrespective of evidence of allergic asthma.

Efficacy of Tezepelumab in Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma: Pooled Analysis of the PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR Clinical Trials.

Rationale: Tezepelumab reduced exacerbations in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma across a range of baseline blood eosinophil counts and fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and irrespective of allergy status, in the phase 2b PATHWAY (Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of MEDI9929 [AMG 157] in Adult Subjects With Inadequately Controlled, Severe Asthma; NCT02054130) and phase 3 NAVIGATOR (Study to Evaluate Tezepelumab in Adults & Adolescents With Severe Uncontrolled Asthma; NCT03347279) trials. Objectives: To examine the efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in additional clinically relevant subgroups using pooled data from PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR. Methods: PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with similar designs. This pooled analysis included patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma (PATHWAY, 18-75 years old; NAVIGATOR, 12-80 years old) who received tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The annualized asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks and secondary outcomes were calculated in the overall population and in subgroups defined by inflammatory biomarker levels or clinical characteristics. Measurements and Main Results: Overall, 1,334 patients were included (tezepelumab, n = 665; placebo, n = 669). Tezepelumab reduced the annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo by 60% (rate ratio, 0.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.48]) in the overall population, and clinically meaningful reductions in exacerbations were observed in tezepelumab-treated patients with type 2-high and type 2-low disease by multiple definitions. Tezepelumab reduced exacerbation-related hospitalization or emergency department visits and improved secondary outcomes compared with placebo overall and across subgroups. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: Tezepelumab resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in exacerbations and improvements in other outcomes in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, across clinically relevant subgroups. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02054130 [PATHWAY], NCT03347279 [NAVIGATOR]).

Long-term safety and efficacy of tezepelumab in people with severe, uncontrolled asthma (DESTINATION): a randomised, placebo-controlled extension study.

BACKGROUND: Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin. The drug has been tested previously in the phase 3 NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279) and SOURCE (NCT03406078) studies, and was subsequently approved as a treatment for severe asthma. This extension study recruited from NAVIGATOR and SOURCE and aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of tezepelumab in individuals with severe, uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: DESTINATION was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, long-term extension study. The study was done across 182 sites (including hospitals, clinics, medical centres, clinical trial centres, and private practices) in 18 countries. Participants (aged 12-80 years) were required to have good treatment compliance in the parent study. Randomisation was stratified by the parent study and all participants were re-randomised. Those who were previously randomised to receive tezepelumab in either parent study continued treatment of subcutaneous tezepelumab (210 mg every 4 weeks); those who were previously randomised to receive placebo in either parent study were re-randomised 1:1 to receive either subcutaneous tezepelumab (210 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo (every 4 weeks) using a randomisation list prepared by a computerised system. Total treatment duration (including the parent studies) was 104 weeks for all groups. Participants, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were exposure-adjusted incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events and the secondary endpoint was the annualised asthma exacerbation rate; these were assessed from week 0 of the parent studies to week 104 of DESTINATION in all participants who were randomised and who received at least one dose of tezepelumab or placebo in either of the parent studies. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03706079, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Participants were recruited between Jan 7, 2019, and Oct 15, 2020. For individuals who initially received tezepelumab (n=528) in NAVIGATOR, incidence of adverse events over 104 weeks was 49·62 (95% CI 45·16 to 54·39) per 100 patient-years, compared with 62·66 (56·93 to 68·81) for those receiving placebo (n=531; difference -13·04, 95% CI -17·83 to -8·18). For serious adverse events, incidence was 7·85 (6·14 to 9·89) per 100 patient-years for individuals who initially received tezepelumab and 12·45 (9·97 to 15·35) for those who received placebo (difference -4·59, -7·69 to -1·65). In SOURCE, incidence of adverse events was 47·15 (36·06 to 60·56) per 100 patient-years for those who initially received tezepelumab (n=74) and 69·97 (54·54 to 88·40) for those who received placebo (n=76; difference -22·82, -34·77 to -10·01). For serious adverse events, incidence was 13·14 (7·65 to 21·04) per 100 patient-years for those who initially received tezepelumab and 17·99 (10·66 to 28·44) for those who received placebo (difference -4·85, -14·88 to 4·53). Tezepelumab reduced the annualised asthma exacerbation rate over 104 weeks compared with placebo. In participants initially from NAVIGATOR, the annualised asthma exacerbation rate ratio over 104 weeks was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35 to 0·51); in those initially from SOURCE, the ratio over 104 weeks was 0·61 (0·38 to 0·96). INTERPRETATION: Tezepelumab treatment was well tolerated for up to 2 years and resulted in sustained, clinically meaningful reductions in asthma exacerbations in individuals with severe, uncontrolled asthma. These findings are consistent with previous randomised, placebo-controlled studies and show the long-term safety and sustained efficacy of tezepelumab in individuals with severe, uncontrolled asthma. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Amgen.

Asthma exacerbations during the pandemic: Time to rethink clinical markers.

Background: Reductions in asthma exacerbations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have an impact on clinical trial enrollment and outcomes. Objective: Our aim was to review clinical studies and reports evaluating asthma exacerbations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We reviewed clinical studies conducted with biologics over the past decade that evaluated asthma exacerbations as the primary end point. We also reviewed recent clinical reports evaluating asthma exacerbations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: We showed that studies requiring at least 2 exacerbations in the prior year resulted in a higher number of exacerbations on study in the placebo arm, and conversely, those studies in which exacerbations were not required for entering the study failed to meet the primary end point. This result confirmed that history of prior exacerbations is a good maker to predict future exacerbations. In addition, a review of the literature confirmed a reduction of asthma exacerbations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data presented are descriptive; no formal statistics were used. Conclusion: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, historical exacerbations may no longer be the best predictor for exacerbations in a clinical trial or clinical practice. Other clinical markers associated with exacerbations, such as blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, should be considered for enrollment in clinical studies assessing asthma exacerbations.

A dual role for CRTH2 in acute lung injury.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening clinical condition defined by rapid onset respiratory failure following acute lung injury (ALI). Its increased incidence due to COVID-19 and high mortality rate (∻40%) make the study of ARDS pathogenesis a crucial research priority. CRTH2 is a G protein-coupled receptor with established roles in type 2 immunity and well-characterized inhibitors. Prior studies have shown it also promotes neutrophilic inflammation, indicating that CRTH2 inhibition may be a potential therapeutic strategy for ARDS. To test this hypothesis, we first examined the expression pattern of CRTH2 on murine neutrophils. We found it is expressed on neutrophils, but only after extravasation into the lung. Next, we showed that extravasated lung neutrophils generate inflammatory responses upon stimulation with the CRTH2-specific agonist DK-PGD2, as demonstrated by reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. This response was abrogated in CRTH2 KO neutrophils. Inhibition of CRTH2 with fevipiprant suppressed baseline ROS production, indicating an autocrine PGD2-CRTH2 signaling loop. We then evaluated the role of CRTH2 in vivo using a murine model of LPS-induced ALI. Despite the pro-inflammatory effects of CRTH2 on neutrophils in vitro, we observed worsening of lung injury in CRTH2-deficient mice in terms of neutrophilic inflammation, vascular leak, and survival. Bulk RNAseq of lung tissue indicated an impairment in type 2 immune signaling; qPCR and ELISA confirmed downregulation of the key type 2 effector cytokine, IL-4. Thus, CRTH2 appears to play a dual role in ALI, directly promoting neutrophil effector responses, but indirectly suppressing lung injury and neutrophilic inflammation through type 2 immunity. These findings reveal a novel protective function for CRTH2 during lung injury and argue against the use of CRTH2 inhibitors in ARDS.