Effectiveness of omalizumab across different dosing regimens in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.

For patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab is approved for subcutaneous administration according to a recommended dosing table based on weight and total immunoglobulin E (IgE) level. The aim of this analysis was to assess asthma outcomes including quality of life in patients with allergic asthma initiated on omalizumab in the PROSPERO trial; patients were stratified by where their IgE and body weight fell on the approved dosing table. Patient groups were defined as Inside Dosing Table: patients whose IgE and weight fell within the approved dosing table (n = 506); Insufficient Data to Recommend a Dose: patients who fell into the section of the approved dosing table where not enough clinical data were available to make dosing recommendations (n = 72); and Outside Dosing Table: patients who fell outside the approved dosing table due to baseline IgE and/or weight (n = 209). Overall, asthma and quality of life outcomes were improved after omalizumab initiation for both patients who fall within the recommended dosing table or those who fall outside the recommended dosing table. Our results suggest that omalizumab treatment may be effective in a wide range of patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01922037.

A Randomized Trial of a Composite T2-Biomarker Strategy Adjusting Corticosteroid Treatment in Severe Asthma: A Post Hoc Analysis by Sex.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5% to 10% of patients with asthma have severe disease, with a consistent preponderance in females. Current asthma guidelines recommend stepwise treatment to achieve symptom control with no differential treatment considerations for either sex. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patient sex affects outcomes when using a composite T2-biomarker score to adjust corticosteroid (CS) treatment in patients with severe asthma compared with standard care. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis, stratifying patient outcomes by sex, of a 48-week, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing a biomarker-defined treatment algorithm with standard care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction in CS treatment (inhaled and oral corticosteroids). Secondary outcomes included exacerbation rates, hospital admissions, and lung function. RESULTS: Of the 301 patients randomized, 194 (64.5%) were females and 107 (35.5%) were males. The biomarker algorithm led to a greater proportion of females being on a lower CS dose versus standard care, which was not seen in males (effect estimate: females, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.14-11.18 vs males, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.16-1.80). In T2-biomarker-low females, reducing CS dose was not associated with increased exacerbations. Females scored higher in all domains of the 7-item Asthma Control Questionnaire, apart from FEV1, but with no difference when adjusted for body mass index/anxiety and/or depression. Dissociation between symptoms and T2 biomarkers were noted in both sexes, with a higher proportion of females being symptom high/T2-biomarker low (22.8% vs 15.6%; P = .0002), whereas males were symptom low/T2-biomarker high (22.3% vs 11.4%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory post hoc analysis identified that females achieved a greater benefit from biomarker-directed CS optimization versus symptom-directed treatment.

A genome-wide association study of chronic spontaneous urticaria risk and heterogeneity.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a dermatologic condition characterized by spontaneous, pruritic hives and/or angioedema that persists for 6 weeks or longer with no identifiable trigger. Antihistamines and second-line therapies such as omalizumab are effective for some CSU patients, but others remain symptomatic, with significant impact on quality of life. This variable response to treatment and autoantibody levels across patients highlight clinically heterogeneous subgroups. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to highlight pathways involved in CSU by investigating the genetics of CSU risk and subgroups. METHODS: We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 679 CSU patients and 4446 controls and a GWAS of chronic urticaria (CU)-index, which measures IgG autoantibodies levels, by comparing 447 CU index-low to 183 CU index-high patients. We also tested whether polygenic scores for autoimmune-related disorders were associated with CSU risk and CU index. RESULTS: We identified 2 loci significantly associated with disease risk. The strongest association mapped to position 56 of HLA-DQA1 (P = 1.69 × 10-9), where the arginine residue was associated with increased risk (odds ratio = 1.64). The second association signal colocalized with expression-quantitative trait loci for ITPKB in whole blood (Pcolocalization = .997). The arginine residue at position 56 of HLA-DQA1 was also associated with increased risk of CU index-high (P = 6.15 × 10-5, odds ratio = 1.86), while the ITKPB association was not (P = .64). Polygenic scores for 3 autoimmune-related disorders (hypothyroidism, type 1 diabetes, and vitiligo) were associated with CSU risk and CU index (P < 2.34 × 10-3, odds ratio > 1.72). CONCLUSION: A GWAS of CSU identified 2 genome-wide significant loci, highlighting the shared genetics between CU index and autoimmune disorders.

Patients with allergic asthma have lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than patients with nonallergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Although asthma does not appear to be a risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), outcomes could vary for patients with different asthma subtypes. The objective of this analysis was to compare COVID-19 outcomes in real-world cohorts in the United States among patients with asthma, with or without evidence of allergy. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of the COVID-19 Optum electronic health record dataset (February 20, 2020-January 28, 2021), patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with a history of moderate-to-severe asthma were divided into 2 cohorts: those with evidence of allergic asthma and those without (nonallergic asthma). After 1:1 propensity score matching, in which covariates were balanced and potential bias was removed, COVID-19 outcomes were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: From a COVID-19 population of 591,198 patients, 1595 patients with allergic asthma and 8204 patients with nonallergic asthma were identified. After propensity score matching (n = 1578 per cohort), risk of death from any cause after COVID-19 diagnosis was significantly lower for patients with allergic vs nonallergic asthma (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI 0.28-0.83; P = 0.0087), and a smaller proportion of patients with allergic vs nonallergic asthma was hospitalized within - 7 to + 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis (13.8% [n = 217] vs 18.3% [n = 289]; P = 0.0005). Among hospitalized patients, there were no significant differences between patients with allergic or nonallergic asthma in need for intensive care unit admission, respiratory support, or COVID-19 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma subtype may influence outcomes after COVID-19; patients with allergic asthma are at lower risk for hospitalization/death than those with nonallergic asthma.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lebrikizumab in adolescent patients with uncontrolled asthma (ACOUSTICS).

Background: Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that modulates activity of interleukin-13. The Phase 3 ACOUSTICS study assessed lebrikizumab efficacy and safety in adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite standard-of-care treatment. Methods: Adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with uncontrolled asthma, prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s 40%-90% predicted, and stable background therapy were randomised 1:1:1 to receive lebrikizumab 125 or 37.5 mg or placebo subcutaneously once every 4 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint was asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks. Results: Between August 2013 and July 2016, 579 patients were screened and 346 were randomised; 224 (65%) completed the study with 52 weeks of treatment. Lebrikizumab 125 mg (n = 116) reduced the exacerbation rate at 52 weeks versus placebo (n = 117; adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.49 [95% CI 0.28-0.83]; 51% rate reduction). Lebrikizumab 37.5 mg (n = 113) was less effective at reducing exacerbations (RR 0.60 [95% CI 0.35-1.03]; 40% rate reduction). In patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µl, both lebrikizumab doses reduced exacerbations (125 mg: RR 0.44 [95% CI 0.21-0.89]; 37.5 mg: 0.42 [95% CI 0.19-0.93]). Treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in 155 (68%), 7 (3%), and 5 (2%) of 229 patients who received lebrikizumab (both 125 and 37.5 mg doses) and in 72 (62%), 4 (3%), and 1 (1%) of 117 who received placebo, respectively. No deaths occurred. Conclusion: Lebrikizumab 125 mg reduced asthma exacerbation rates in adolescents with uncontrolled asthma. However, the study was prematurely terminated (sponsor's decision) potentially limiting interpretation of results. Clinical trial registration: NCT01875003 (www.ClinicalTrials.gov).

Exacerbation Profile and Risk Factors in a Type-2-Low Enriched Severe Asthma Cohort: A Clinical Trial to Assess Asthma Exacerbation Phenotypes.

Rationale: The past 25 years have seen huge progress in understanding of the pathobiology of type-2 (T2) asthma, identification of measurable biomarkers, and the emergence of novel monoclonal antibody treatments. Although present in a minority of patients with severe asthma, very little is known about the mechanisms underlying T2-low asthma, making it a significant unmet need in asthma research. Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore the differences between study exacerbators and nonexacerbators, to describe physiological changes at exacerbation in those who are T2HIGH and T2LOW at the time of exacerbation, and to evaluate the stability of inflammatory phenotypes when stable and at exacerbation. Methods: Exacerbation assessment was a prespecified secondary analysis of data from a 48-week, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study comparing the use of biomarkers and symptoms to adjust steroid treatment in a T2-low severe asthma-enriched cohort. Participants were phenotyped as T2LOW (fractional exhaled nitric oxide ⩽ 20 ppb and blood eosinophil count ⩽ 150 cells/µl) or T2HIGH (fractional exhaled nitric oxide > 20 or blood eosinophil count > 150) at study enrollment and at each exacerbation. Here, we report the findings of the exacerbation analyses, including comparison of exacerbators and nonexacerbators, the physiological changes at exacerbation in those who had evidence of T2 biology at exacerbation versus those that did not, and the stability of inflammatory phenotypes when stable and at exacerbation. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 301 participants, 60.8% (183) had one or more self-reported exacerbations (total of 390). Exacerbators were more likely to be female, have a higher body mass index, and have more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid and unscheduled primary care attendances for exacerbations. At enrollment, 23.6% (71) were T2LOW and 76.4% (230) T2HIGH. The T2LOW group had more asthma primary care attendances, were more likely to have a previous admission to HDU (high dependency unit)/ICU and to be receiving maintenance oral corticosteroids. At exacerbation, the T2LOW events were indistinguishable from T2HIGH exacerbations in terms of lung function (mean fall in T2LOW FEV1, 200 [400] ml vs. T2HIGH 200 [300] ml; P = 0.93) and symptom increase (ACQ5: T2LOW, 1.4 [0.8] vs. T2HIGH, 1.3 [0.8]; P = 0.72), with no increase in T2 biomarkers from stable to exacerbation state in the T2LOW exacerbations. The inflammatory phenotype within individual patients was dynamic; inflammatory phenotype at study entry did not have a significant association with exacerbation phenotype. Conclusions: Asthma exacerbations demonstrating a T2LOW phenotype were physiologically and symptomatically similar to T2HIGH exacerbations. T2LOW asthma was an unstable phenotype, suggesting that exacerbation phenotyping should occur at the time of exacerbation. The clinically significant exacerbations in participants without evidence of T2 biology at the time of exacerbation highlight the unmet and pressing need to further understand the mechanisms at play in non-T2 asthma. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02717689).

A whole genome sequencing study of moderate to severe asthma identifies a lung function locus associated with asthma risk.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many common variant loci associated with asthma susceptibility, but few studies investigate the genetics underlying moderate-to-severe asthma risk. Here, we present a whole-genome sequencing study comparing 3181 moderate-to-severe asthma patients to 3590 non-asthma controls. We demonstrate that asthma risk is genetically correlated with lung function measures and that this component of asthma risk is orthogonal to the eosinophil genetics that also contribute to disease susceptibility. We find that polygenic scores for reduced lung function are associated with younger asthma age of onset. Genome-wide, seven previously reported common asthma variant loci and one previously reported lung function locus, near THSD4, reach significance. We replicate association of the lung function locus in a recently published GWAS of moderate-to-severe asthma patients. We additionally replicate the association of a previously reported rare (minor allele frequency < 1%) coding variant in IL33 and show significant enrichment of rare variant burden in genes from common variant allergic disease loci. Our findings highlight the contribution of lung function genetics to moderate-to-severe asthma risk, and provide initial rare variant support for associations with moderate-to-severe asthma risk at several candidate genes from common variant loci.

Impact of body mass index on omalizumab response in adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of asthma treatment, including biologics, may be different in patients with higher body mass index (BMI). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate response to omalizumab (dosed by serum immunoglobulin E level and weight) by BMI category. METHODS: Pooled data from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma were analyzed by BMI category (<25 kg/m2 [normal or underweight], n = 397; 25 to <30 kg/m2 [overweight], n = 330; ≥ 30 kg/m2 [obese], n = 268). Placebo-adjusted exacerbation rate reductions were evaluated by Poisson regression modeling. Changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) dose, Total Asthma Symptom Score, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire were evaluated by analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Greater placebo-adjusted exacerbation rate reductions (95% confidence interval) were observed with increasing BMI (normal or underweight, -37.4% [-69.0% to 26.8%]; overweight, -52.7% [-78.4% to 3.7%]; obese, -71.9% [-86.9% to -39.5%]). There were no differences in forced expiratory volume in 1 second improvement between BMI categories at week 16 (normal or underweight, 76.2 [5.3-147.1] mL; overweight, 98.1 [13.9-182.4] mL; obese, 69.1 [-18.9 to 157.2] mL). No differences in BDP dose reduction (µg) were noted between BMI categories (normal or underweight, 23.0 [15.7-30.3]; overweight, 22.5 [13.5-31.5]; obese, 16.6 [5.8-27.3]). Fewer patients in the higher BMI categories eliminated BDP use. There were trends for smaller improvements with higher BMI in Total Asthma Symptom Score (normal/underweight, -0.52 [-0.82 to -0.22]; overweight, -0.50 [-0.80 to -0.20]; obese, -0.39 [-0.77 to 0.00]) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (normal or underweight, 0.34 [0.16-0.52]; overweight, 0.34 [0.13-0.55]; obese, 0.15 [-0.08 to 0.39]). CONCLUSION: Omalizumab provides benefit to patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, regardless of BMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Studies 008/009 were conducted before clinical trial registration was required, and therefore clinical trial registration numbers are not available.

Defining the Efficacy of Omalizumab in Nasal Polyposis: A POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a heterogeneous disease with variable underlying pathophysiologies. Numerous patient factors have been linked to differences in disease severity, control, and response to treatment, including asthma status, aspirin sensitivity, previous sinonasal surgery, and blood eosinophil levels. OBJECTIVE: The present study examines the efficacy of the anti-immunoglobulin E therapy, omalizumab, versus placebo in patients with CRSwNP from the replicate POLYP 1 (NCT03280550) and POLYP 2 (NCT03280537) trials, grouped by inherent patient characteristics to determine the response to therapy. METHODS: Patients in prespecified subgroups from POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 (studies pooled for analysis) were examined. Subgroups included blood eosinophil count at baseline (>300 or ≤300 cells/µL), previous sinonasal surgery (yes or no), asthma status (yes or no), and aspirin sensitivity status (yes or no). Subgroups were examined for subgroup-specific adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) (omalizumab-placebo) in change from baseline at week 24 in Nasal Congestion Score (NCS), Nasal Polyp Score (NPS), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). RESULTS: Adjusted mean difference (95% CI) (omalizumab-placebo) in NCS, NPS, SNOT-22, TNSS, and UPSIT change from baseline at week 24 consistently favored omalizumab treatment over placebo in patients with blood eosinophil count >300 and ≤300 cells/µL, with or without previous sinonasal surgery, asthma, and aspirin sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Together, these data suggest broad efficacy of omalizumab across clinical and patient-reported outcomes in patients with CRSwNP, independent of the underlying patient factors examined, including those with high eosinophil levels and those who have undergone previous surgery, which are associated with high recurrence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: POLYP 1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03280550 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280550); POLYP 2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03280537 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280537).

Omalizumab in Asthma with Fixed Airway Obstruction: Post Hoc Analysis of EXTRA.

BACKGROUND: Although asthma is typically characterized by bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR), fixed airflow obstruction (FAO) occurs in ∼50% of patients with severe asthma. OBJECTIVE: Do FAO/BDR associate with efficacy of omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets IgE? METHODS: In EXTRA, patients aged 12-75 years with inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß2-agonists were randomized to omalizumab (n = 427) or placebo (n = 423) for 48 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, high/low BDR were defined as ≥12%/<12% increases in baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) after bronchodilator administration, respectively. FAO presence (+)/absence (-) were defined as baseline postbronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity <70%/≥70%, respectively. Poisson regression/analysis of covariance models were used to estimate exacerbation relative rate reductions (RRRs)/least-squares mean changes in FEV1, respectively. RESULTS: In patients with high BDR, omalizumab reduced exacerbations more than placebo over the 48-week treatment period regardless of FAO status (RRR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: FAO+, 59.8% [17.7-80.4%]; FAO-, 44.3% [16.6-62.8%]). Omalizumab improved FEV1 compared with placebo in the FAO-, high BDR subgroup (FEV1 change from baseline [95% CI] for omalizumab vs placebo, 0.065 L [-0.071 to 0.201 L] to 0.236 L [0.112-0.359 L]) across 48 weeks. This was not observed in patients with low BDR, irrespective of FAO. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab was more efficacious than placebo at reducing exacerbations in patients with high, but not low, BDR, regardless of the presence of FAO. Lung function improvement primarily occurred in FAO-, high BDR patients, suggesting that asthma with low BDR may represent a difficult-to-treat phenotype.

Racial/ethnic differences in eligibility for asthma biologics among pediatric populations.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a heterogeneous disease. Clinical blood parameters differ by race/ethnicity and are used to distinguish asthma subtypes and inform therapies. Differences in subtypes may explain population-specific trends in asthma outcomes. However, these differences in racial/ethnic minority pediatric populations are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association of blood parameters and asthma subtypes with asthma outcomes and examined population-specific eligibility for biologic therapies in minority pediatric populations. METHODS: Using data from 2 asthma case-control studies of pediatric minority populations, we performed case-control (N = 3738) and case-only (N = 2743) logistic regressions to quantify the association of blood parameters and asthma subtypes with asthma outcomes. Heterogeneity of these associations was tested using an interaction term between race/ethnicity and each exposure. Differences in therapeutic eligibility were investigated using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Race/ethnicity modified the association between total IgE and asthma exacerbations. Elevated IgE level was associated with worse asthma outcomes in Puerto Ricans. Allergic asthma was associated with worse outcomes in Mexican Americans, whereas eosinophilic asthma was associated with worse outcomes in Puerto Ricans. A lower proportion of Puerto Ricans met dosing criteria for allergic asthma-directed biologic therapy than other groups. A higher proportion of Puerto Ricans qualified for eosinophilic asthma-directed biologic therapy than African Americans. CONCLUSIONS: We found population-specific associations between blood parameters and asthma subtypes with asthma outcomes. Our findings suggest that eligibility for asthma biologic therapies differs across pediatric racial/ethnic populations. These findings call for more studies in diverse populations for equitable treatment of minority patients with asthma.

Response to Omalizumab in Black and White Patients with Allergic Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Higher asthma burden is more likely to be experienced by Black than White patients. In clinical research, underrepresentation of minority populations is observed. OBJECTIVE: To estimate response to omalizumab in Black and White patients in North America with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: Data from placebo-controlled (EXTRA) and single-armed (PROSPERO) omalizumab studies were used for this post hoc analysis. We used a Poisson regression model to examine exacerbation rates. An analysis of covariance model was used to estimate placebo-corrected change in FEV1 and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) by racial group. RESULTS: This analysis included 631 White and 176 Black patients from EXTRA and 567 White and 130 Black patients from PROSPERO. In EXTRA, placebo-corrected exacerbation rate reductions (relative rate change [95% confidence interval], 22.6% [2.0-38.9%] vs 22.0% [-18.0% to 48.4%]) and FEV1 improvements were similar for White and Black patients. There was a trend toward greater AQLQ improvements for Black versus White patients (least squares mean treatment differences: 0.0 vs 0.3, 0.6 vs 0.4, and 0.6 vs 0.2 at weeks 16, 32, and 48, respectively) throughout the study. In PROSPERO, on-study exacerbation rates (0.76 [0.65-0.88] vs 0.77 [0.56-1.10]) and AQLQ improvements (least squares mean change from baseline: 1.2 vs 1.2 and 1.3 vs 1.2 at month 6 and end of study, respectively) were similar for White versus Black patients. A trend toward greater FEV1 improvement was observed in White versus Black patients throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of EXTRA and PROSPERO suggests that Black and White patients with moderate to severe asthma experience similar improvements in exacerbations, FEV1, and AQLQ with omalizumab.

Omalizumab response in patients with asthma by number and type of allergen.

BACKGROUND: The anti-immunoglobulin E therapy, omalizumab, improves asthma control and reduces exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, it has been suggested that omalizumab should be reserved for highly allergic patients with multiple allergen sensitivities or perennial-only sensitivities. OBJECTIVE: To examine impact of allergy burden, including number and type of allergen sensitivities, on omalizumab response in a real-world setting. METHODS: This post hoc analysis evaluated a subset of omalizumab-treated patients from the Prospective Observational Study to Evaluate Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness in Response to Omalizumab (NCT01922037) who had completed 13 allergen assessments (N=478). Patients were classified by allergen burden (nonsensitized, 1, 2-4, or ≥5 allergen sensitivities) and type of allergen (nonsensitized, seasonal, perennial, or both). Outcome measures included exacerbation rate vs previous year and improvements in lung function and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). RESULTS: Comparable adjusted exacerbation rates were observed after omalizumab initiation, regardless of number or type of allergen sensitizations (0.56-0.85/y). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline at months 6 (0.03-0.09 L) and 12 (-0.08 to 0.08 L) were also similar across subgroups. Least squares mean change in AQLQ from baseline at months 6 (1.0-1.2) and 12 (1.1-1.4) was comparable across patient subgroups, and similar percentages of patients achieved AQLQ minimal clinically important difference of at least a 0.5-point improvement at month 6 (71%-75%), which was maintained or improved to month 12 (71%-89%). In all analyses, 95% confidence intervals overlapped. CONCLUSION: Overall findings suggest that patients with allergic asthma achieved comparable improvements across distinct outcome measures after omalizumab therapy in a real-world setting, regardless of number and type of allergen sensitizations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01922037.

A Comprehensive Analysis of the Stability of Blood Eosinophil Levels.

Rationale: Blood eosinophil counts are used to inform diagnosis/management of eosinophilic asthma. Objectives: Examine blood eosinophil variability and identify factors affecting eosinophil levels to inform clinical interpretation. Methods:Post hoc analysis to understand eosinophil variability using data from four randomized controlled asthma trials. We examined 1) influence of intrinsic/extrinsic factors (comorbidities, medication, and patient history) using baseline data (n = 2,612); 2) monthly variation using placebo-treated patient data (n = 713); 3) stability of eosinophil classification (<150, 150-299, and ⩾300 cells/µl) in placebo-treated patients with monthly measurements over a 1-year period (n = 751); and 4) impact of technical factors (laboratory-to-laboratory differences and time from collection to analysis). Results: Of intrinsic/extrinsic factors examined, nasal polyps increased eosinophil levels by 38%, whereas current smoking decreased levels by 23%. Substantial seasonal differences in eosinophil counts were observed, with differences of ∼20% between July and January. Eosinophil levels between 150 and 299 cells/µl were least stable, with 44% of patients remaining in the same classification for seven of 10 measurements versus 59% and 66% of patients in the <150 and ⩾300 cells/µl subgroups, respectively. Measurements at different laboratories showed high association (Spearman's correlation coefficient, R = 0.89); however, eosinophil counts were reduced, with longer time from collection to analysis, and variability increased with increasing eosinophil counts. Conclusions: Several intrinsic, extrinsic, and technical factors may influence, and should be considered in, clinical interpretation of eosinophil counts. Additionally, a single measurement may not be sufficient when using eosinophil counts for diagnosis/management of eosinophilic asthma.

No difference in omalizumab efficacy in patients with asthma by number of asthma-related and allergic comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities are common in asthma and may complicate treatment response. OBJECTIVE: To examine response to omalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma by asthma-related and allergic comorbidities. METHODS: Patients aged 12 years or more from placebo-controlled 008/009 (n = 1071), EXTRA (n = 848), and INNOVATE (n = 419), and single-armed PROSPERO (n = 801) omalizumab studies were included. Poisson regression/analysis of covariance models were used to estimate adjusted exacerbation rates and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) change from baseline after omalizumab initiation for subgroups by number of comorbidities (0, 1 [008/009]; 0, 1, ≥2 [EXTRA and INNOVATE]; 0, 1, 2, ≥3 [PROSPERO]). Self-reported comorbidities included allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, recurrent acute sinusitis, nasal polyps, atopic and contact dermatitis, urticaria, food allergy, anaphylaxis, other allergies, gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. RESULTS: In the EXTRA and INNOVATE studies, no consistent pattern was observed for placebo-corrected relative rate reduction in normalized asthma exacerbations among omalizumab-treated comorbidity subgroups. In PROSPERO, on-study exacerbation rates in the comorbidity subgroups were similar (0, 0.68; 1, 0.70; 2, 0.77; ≥3, 0.80). FEV1 improvements were observed throughout the study for omalizumab vs placebo for all comorbidity subgroups. There were no consistent differences in FEV1 improvements among comorbidity subgroups in 008/009, EXTRA, or INNOVATE. Similarly, no among-group differences were observed for FEV1 change from baseline at month 12 in PROSPERO (0, 0.05 L; 1, 0.08 L; 2, 0.00 L; ≥3, 0.04 L). The 95% confidence intervals overlapped substantially in all instances. CONCLUSION: In these analyses of placebo-controlled/single-armed studies, on-study exacerbation rates and FEV1 improvements with omalizumab treatment were similar irrespective of comorbidity burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers are as follows: EXTRA, NCT00314574 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00314574); INNOVATE, NCT00046748 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00046748); and PROSPERO, NCT01922037 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01922037).

Urinary Leukotriene E4 and Prostaglandin D2 Metabolites Increase in Adult and Childhood Severe Asthma Characterized by Type 2 Inflammation. A Clinical Observational Study.

Rationale: New approaches are needed to guide personalized treatment of asthma.Objectives: To test if urinary eicosanoid metabolites can direct asthma phenotyping.Methods: Urinary metabolites of prostaglandins (PGs), cysteinyl leukotrienes (CysLTs), and isoprostanes were quantified in the U-BIOPRED (Unbiased Biomarkers for the Prediction of Respiratory Diseases Outcomes) study including 86 adults with mild-to-moderate asthma (MMA), 411 with severe asthma (SA), and 100 healthy control participants. Validation was performed internally in 302 participants with SA followed up after 12-18 months and externally in 95 adolescents with asthma.Measurement and Main Results: Metabolite concentrations in healthy control participants were unrelated to age, body mass index, and sex, except for the PGE2 pathway. Eicosanoid concentrations were generally greater in participants with MMA relative to healthy control participants, with further elevations in participants with SA. However, PGE2 metabolite concentrations were either the same or lower in male nonsmokers with asthma than in healthy control participants. Metabolite concentrations were unchanged in those with asthma who adhered to oral corticosteroid treatment as documented by urinary prednisolone detection, whereas those with SA treated with omalizumab had lower concentrations of LTE4 and the PGD2 metabolite 2,3-dinor-11ß-PGF2α. High concentrations of LTE4 and PGD2 metabolites were associated with lower lung function and increased amounts of exhaled nitric oxide and eosinophil markers in blood, sputum, and urine in U-BIOPRED participants and in adolescents with asthma. These type 2 (T2) asthma associations were reproduced in the follow-up visit of the U-BIOPRED study and were found to be as sensitive to detect T2 inflammation as the established biomarkers.Conclusions: Monitoring of urinary eicosanoids can identify T2 asthma and introduces a new noninvasive approach for molecular phenotyping of adult and adolescent asthma.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01976767).

Composite type-2 biomarker strategy versus a symptom-risk-based algorithm to adjust corticosteroid dose in patients with severe asthma: a multicentre, single-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma treatment guidelines recommend increasing corticosteroid dose to control symptoms and reduce exacerbations. This approach is potentially flawed because symptomatic asthma can occur without corticosteroid responsive type-2 (T2)-driven eosinophilic inflammation, and inappropriately high-dose corticosteroid treatment might have little therapeutic benefit with increased risk of side-effects. We compared a biomarker strategy to adjust corticosteroid dose using a composite score of T2 biomarkers (fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FENO], blood eosinophils, and serum periostin) with a standardised symptom-risk-based algorithm (control). METHODS: We did a single-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in adults (18-80 years of age) with severe asthma (at treatment steps 4 and 5 of the Global Initiative for Asthma) and FENO of less than 45 parts per billion at 12 specialist severe asthma centres across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to either the biomarker strategy group or the control group by an online electronic case-report form, in blocks of ten, stratified by asthma control and use of rescue systemic steroids in the previous year. Patients were masked to study group allocation throughout the entirety of the study. Patients attended clinic every 8 weeks, with treatment adjustment following automated treatment-group-specific algorithms: those in the biomarker strategy group received a default advisory to maintain treatment and those in the control group had their treatment adjusted according to the steps indicated by the trial algorithm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with corticosteroid dose reduction at week 48, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary outcomes were inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose at the end of the study; cumulative dose of ICS during the study; proportion of patients on maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS) at study end; rate of protocol-defined severe exacerbations per patient year; time to first severe exacerbation; number of hospital admissions for asthma; changes in lung function, Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 score, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and T2 biomarkers from baseline to week 48; and whether patients declined to progress to OCS. A secondary aim of our study was to establish the proportion of patients with severe asthma in whom T2 biomarkers remained low when corticosteroid therapy was decreased to a minimum ICS dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02717689 and has been completed. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited from Jan 8, 2016, to July 12, 2018. Of 549 patients assessed, 301 patients were included in the ITT population and were randomly assigned to the biomarker strategy group (n=240) or to the control group (n=61). 28·4% of patients in the biomarker strategy group were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 compared with 18·5% of patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·71 [95% CI 0·80-3·63]; p=0·17). In the per-protocol (PP) population (n=121), a significantly greater proportion of patients were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 in the biomarker strategy group (30·7% of patients) compared with the control group (5·0% of patients; aOR 11·48 [95% CI 1·35-97·83]; p=0·026). Patient choice to not follow treatment advice was the principle reason for loss to PP analysis. There was no difference in secondary outcomes between study groups and no loss of asthma control among patients in the biomarker strategy group who reduced their corticosteroid dose. INTERPRETATION: Biomarker-based corticosteroid adjustment did not result in a greater proportion of patients reducing corticosteroid dose versus control. Understanding the reasons for patients not following treatment advice in both treatment strategies is an important area for future research. The prevalence of T2 biomarker-low severe asthma was low. FUNDING: This study was funded, in part, by the Medical Research Council UK.