COVID-19 vaccination acceptance, safety and side-effects in European patients with severe asthma.

Background: Vaccination is vital for achieving population immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but vaccination hesitancy presents a threat to achieving widespread immunity. Vaccine acceptance in chronic potentially immunosuppressed patients is largely unclear, especially in patients with asthma. The aim of this study was to investigate the vaccination experience in people with severe asthma. Methods: Questionnaires about vaccination beliefs (including the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale, a measure of vaccination hesitancy-related beliefs), vaccination side-effects, asthma control and overall safety perceptions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination were sent to patients with severe asthma in 12 European countries between May and June 2021. Results: 660 participants returned completed questionnaires (87.4% response rate). Of these, 88% stated that they had been, or intended to be, vaccinated, 9.5% were undecided/hesitant and 3% had refused vaccination. Patients who hesitated or refused vaccination had more negative beliefs towards vaccination. Most patients reported mild (48.2%) or no side-effects (43.8%). Patients reporting severe side-effects (5.7%) had more negative beliefs. Most patients (88.8%) reported no change in asthma symptoms after vaccination, while 2.4% reported an improvement, 5.3% a slight deterioration and 1.2% a considerable deterioration. Almost all vaccinated (98%) patients would recommend vaccination to other severe asthma patients. Conclusions: Uptake of vaccination in patients with severe asthma in Europe was high, with a small minority refusing vaccination. Beliefs predicted vaccination behaviour and side-effects. Vaccination had little impact on asthma control. Our findings in people with severe asthma support the broad message that COVID-19 vaccination is safe and well tolerated.

Evaluation of real-world mepolizumab use in severe asthma across Europe: the SHARP experience with privacy-preserving federated analysis.

Background: An objective of the Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Registry, Patient-centered (SHARP) is to produce real-world evidence on a pan-European scale by linking nonstandardised, patient-level registry data. Mepolizumab has shown clinical efficacy in randomised controlled trials and prospective real-world studies and could therefore serve as a proof of principle for this novel approach. The aim of the present study was to harmonise data from 10 national severe asthma registries and characterise patients receiving mepolizumab, assess its effectiveness on annual exacerbations and maintenance oral glucocorticoid (OCS) use, and evaluate treatment patterns. Methods: In this observational cohort study, registry data (5871 patients) were extracted for harmonisation. Where harmonisation was possible, patients who initiated mepolizumab between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2021 were examined. Changes of a 12-month (range 11-18 months) period in frequent (two or more) exacerbations, maintenance OCS use and dose were analysed in a privacy-preserving manner using meta-analysis of generalised estimating equation parameters. Periods before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were analysed separately. Results: In 912 patients who fulfilled selection criteria, mepolizumab significantly reduced frequent exacerbations (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.13-0.25), maintenance OCS use (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.92) and dose (mean -3.93 mg·day-1, 95% CI -5.24-2.62 mg·day-1) in the pre-pandemic group, with similar trends in the pandemic group. Marked heterogeneity was observed between registries in patient characteristics and mepolizumab treatment patterns. Conclusions: By harmonising patient-level registry data and applying federated analysis, SHARP demonstrated the real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab on asthma exacerbations and maintenance OCS use in severe asthma patients across Europe, consistent with previous evidence. This paves the way for future pan-European real-world severe asthma studies using patient-level data in a privacy-proof manner.

Airway Inflammation Before and After Bronchial Thermoplasty in Severe Asthma.

Background: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a bronchoscopic treatment for severe asthma, of which the working mechanism and responder profile are partly unknown. The aim of this study is to analyse whether BT alters airway inflammation by epithelial gene expression, inflammatory cell counts and cytokines, and whether this relates to treatment response. Methods: In this clinical trial, 28 severe asthma patients underwent bronchoscopy before and after treatment to obtain bronchial brushes and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from treated and untreated airways. RNA was extracted from bronchial brushes for transcriptome analysis, and BALF cells and cytokines were analysed. Asthma quality of life questionnaires were used to distinguish responders from non-responders. We compared results before and after treatment, between treated and untreated airways, and between responders and non-responders. Results: Gene expression of airway epithelium related to airway inflammation gene set was significantly downregulated in treated airways compared to untreated airways, although this did not differ for patients before and after treatment. No differences were observed in cell counts and cytokines, neither from the untreated compared to treated airways, nor before and after treatment. At baseline, compared to non-responders, the expression of genes related to glycolysis in bronchial epithelium was downregulated and both BALF and blood eosinophil counts were higher in responders. Conclusion: Local differences in gene sets pertaining to epithelial inflammatory status were identified between treated and untreated airways after treatment, not resulting in changes in differential cell counts and cytokine analyses in BALF. Secondly, baseline epithelial glycolysis genes and eosinophil counts in BALF and blood were different between responders and non-responders. The observations from this study demonstrate the potential impact of BT on epithelial gene expression related to airway inflammation while also identifying a possible responder profile.

Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study.

Introduction: Treatment with biologics for severe asthma is informed by international and national guidelines and defined by national regulating bodies, but how these drugs are used in real-life is unknown. Materials and methods: The European Respiratory Society (ERS) SHARP Clinical Research Collaboration conducted a three-step survey collecting information on asthma biologics use in Europe. Five geographically distant countries defined the survey questions, focusing on seven end-points: biologics availability and financial issues, prescription and administration modalities, inclusion criteria, continuation criteria, switching biologics, combining biologics and evaluation of corticosteroid toxicity. The survey was then sent to SHARP National Leads of 28 European countries. Finally, selected questions were submitted to a broad group of 263 asthma experts identified by national societies. Results: Availability of biologics varied between countries, with 17 out of 28 countries having all five existing biologics. Authorised prescribers (pulmonologists and other specialists) also differed. In-hospital administration was the preferred deliverance modality. While exacerbation rate was used as an inclusion criterion in all countries, forced expiratory volume in 1 s was used in 46%. Blood eosinophils were an inclusion criterion in all countries for interleukin-5 (IL-5)-targeted and IL-4/IL-13-targeted biologics, with varying thresholds. There were no formally established criteria for continuing biologics. Reduction in exacerbations represented the most important benchmark, followed by improvement in asthma control and quality of life. Only 73% (191 out of 263) of surveyed clinicians assessed their patients for corticosteroid-induced toxicity. Conclusion: Our study reveals important heterogeneity in the use of asthma biologics across Europe. To what extent this impacts on clinical outcomes relevant to patients and healthcare services needs further investigation.

Blueprint for harmonising unstandardised disease registries to allow federated data analysis: prepare for the future.

Real-world evidence from multinational disease registries is becoming increasingly important not only for confirming the results of randomised controlled trials, but also for identifying phenotypes, monitoring disease progression, predicting response to new drugs and early detection of rare side-effects. With new open-access technologies, it has become feasible to harmonise patient data from different disease registries and use it for data analysis without compromising privacy rules. Here, we provide a blueprint for how a clinical research collaboration can successfully use real-world data from existing disease registries to perform federated analyses. We describe how the European severe asthma clinical research collaboration SHARP (Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred) fulfilled the harmonisation process from nonstandardised clinical registry data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model and built a strong network of collaborators from multiple disciplines and countries. The blueprint covers organisational, financial, conceptual, technical, analytical and research aspects, and discusses both the challenges and the lessons learned. All in all, setting up a federated data network is a complex process that requires thorough preparation, but above all, it is a worthwhile investment for all clinical research collaborations, especially in view of the emerging applications of artificial intelligence and federated learning.

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

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

Cumulative corticosteroid-sparing effect of anti-interleukin-5/5Ra in eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Anti-interleukin (IL)-5/IL-5 receptor α (IL-5Ra) therapy has been shown to reduce maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose in severe eosinophilic asthma. However, the effect on cumulative OCS exposure is currently unknown. Neither is it known how prior OCS exposure affects response to anti-IL-5/5Ra treatment. We aimed primarily to compare the cumulative OCS exposure over a 2-year period before and after anti-IL-5/5Ra initiation, and secondarily to investigate whether duration and cumulative OCS exposure prior to anti-IL-5/5Ra influence the ability to discontinue OCS within 2 years of anti-IL-5/5Ra therapy. METHODS: This real-world nationwide observational registry-based study evaluated all dispensed OCS from 389 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma included in the Dutch Severe Asthma Registry (RAPSODI) 2 years before and 2 years after initiating anti-IL-5/5Ra. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and multivariable regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) cumulative OCS exposure in the 2 years before and after anti-IL-5/5Ra initiation decreased from 2.715 (1.150-5.539) to 1.050 (0.300-3.640) g (p<0.001). 52% of patients were able to discontinue OCS within 2 years after anti-IL-5/5Ra therapy, which was independently predicted by lower and shorter prior OCS exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that anti-IL-5/5Ra therapy leads to a significant reduction in cumulative OCS exposure over a 2-year period. Patients with lower and shorter OCS exposure were more likely to completely eliminate OCS. Since cumulative exposure increased progressively prior to anti-IL-5/5Ra initiation, our data suggest that early intervention leads to a better long-term prognosis in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

Real-World Effectiveness of Reslizumab in Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma - First Initiators and Switchers.

BACKGROUND: Reslizumab, a biologic targeting IL-5, has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use in randomized controlled trials and pre-post studies in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, real-world effectiveness data of reslizumab are scarce, and it is unknown whether reslizumab has added value after switching from another type 2 biologic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate (1) the real-world effectiveness of reslizumab on severe asthma exacerbations, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, and overall treatment response, both in biologic-naive patients who initiated reslizumab and in those who switched from another type 2 biologic; and (2) physicians' experience with reslizumab treatment. METHODS: This observational real-world study evaluated data from 134 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma included in the Dutch severe asthma registry (RAPSODI), who initiated reslizumab treatment (4-weekly infusions, 0.3 mg/kg) before April 2020 and had follow-up data for 6 months and greater. Clinical asthma experts completed surveys on their experience with reslizumab treatment. RESULTS: Overall, reslizumab reduced the exacerbation rate (odds ratio [95% CI] = 0.10 [0.05-0.21]; P < .001), oral corticosteroid use (OR [95% CI], 0.2 [0.0-0.5]; P < .001), and maintenance dose (median [CI], 5.0 [0.0-10.0] to 0.0 [0.0-5.0]; P < .001), with comparable results in biologic-naive reslizumab initiators and switchers. The overall response to reslizumab was graded good or excellent in 59.2% of patients. The additive effectiveness of reslizumab after switching from another biologic was reflected in physicians' surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data show that reslizumab reduces severe asthma exacerbations and oral corticosteroid use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, both in biologic-naive reslizumab initiators and in those who switched from another type 2 biologic. This additional value of reslizumab was recognized by clinical asthma experts.

Development of methodology for assessing steroid-tapering in clinical trials for biologics in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) is associated with a risk of adverse events and comorbidities. As such, a goal in assessing the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma is often to monitor reduction in OCS usage. Importantly, however, OCS dose reductions must be conducted without loss of disease control. MAIN BODY: Herein, we describe the development of OCS-sparing study methodologies for biologic therapies in patients with asthma. In particular, we focus on four randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies of varying sizes (key single-center study [n = 20], SIRIUS [n = 135], ZONDA [n = 220], VENTURE [n = 210]) and one open-label study (PONENTE [n = 598]), which assessed the effect of asthma biologics (mepolizumab, benralizumab or dupilumab) on OCS use using predefined OCS-tapering schedules. In particular, we discuss the evolution of study design elements in these studies, including patient eligibility criteria, the use of tailored OCS dose reduction schedules, monitoring of outcomes, the use of biomarkers and use of repetitive assessments of adrenal function during OCS tapering. CONCLUSION: Taken together, these developments have improved OCS-sparing asthma studies in recent years and the lessons learned may help with optimization of further OCS-sparing studies, and potentially clinical practice in the future.

Health outcomes after stopping long-term mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma: COMET.

Asthma worsening and symptom control are clinically important health outcomes in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. This analysis of COMET evaluated whether stopping versus continuing long-term mepolizumab therapy impacted these outcomes. Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with ≥3 years continuous mepolizumab treatment (via COLUMBA (NCT01691859) or COSMEX (NCT02135692) open-label studies) were eligible to enter COMET (NCT02555371), a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomised 1:1 to continue mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks or to stop mepolizumab, plus standard of care asthma treatment. Patients could switch to open-label mepolizumab following an exacerbation. Health outcome endpoints included time to first asthma worsening (composite endpoint: rescue use, symptoms, awakening at night and morning peak expiratory flow (PEF)), patient and clinician assessed global rating of asthma severity and overall perception of response to therapy, and unscheduled healthcare resource utilisation. Patients who stopped mepolizumab showed increased risk of and shorter time to first asthma worsening compared with those who continued mepolizumab (hazard ratio (HR) 1.71; 95% CI 1.17-2.52; p=0.006), including reduced asthma control (increased risk of first worsening in rescue use (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.00-1.84; p=0.047) and morning PEF (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.21-2.59; p=0.003). There was a higher probability of any unscheduled healthcare resource use (HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.31-2.49; p<0.001), and patients and clinicians reported greater asthma severity and less favourable perceived response to therapy for patients who stopped versus continued mepolizumab. These data suggest that patients with severe eosinophilic asthma continuing long-term mepolizumab treatment sustain clinically important improvements in health outcomes.

IL-33 receptor inhibition in subjects with uncontrolled asthma: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Most biologics for severe asthma target only type 2 immunity. Inhibition of IL-33 signaling has the potential to target type 2 and non-type 2 pathways. Objective: This multicenter phase IIA study evaluated the safety and efficacy of GSK3772847, a human mAb directed against the IL-33 receptor (IL-33R) in subjects with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. Methods: Adults with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy received equivalent replacement medication (open-label fluticasone propionate/salmeterol [500/50 µg, twice daily]) for 2 weeks before randomization at week 0. At weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, participants were administered blinded placebo or 10 mg/kg of intravenous GSK3772847. At week 2, salmeterol was discontinued; thereafter, fluticasone propionate was titrated by approximately 50% on weeks 4, 6, 8, and 10. Asthma control was assessed until week 16. Participants with loss of asthma control discontinued treatment. The primary end point was loss of asthma control; secondary end points were the efficacy, safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of GSK3772847. Results: At week 16, 56 participants (81%) and 45 (66%) receiving placebo and GSK3772847, respectively, had loss of asthma control (an 18% reduction [95% credible interval = 2%-35%]). Early loss of asthma control prevented full analysis of the secondary efficacy end points after week 4. The most frequent classes of treatment-related adverse events were cardiac disorders (n = 3 [4%] in both groups) and musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (with GSK3772847, n = 3 [4%]; with placebo n = 0). Target engagement of IL-33R by GSK3772847 was demonstrated. Conclusion: Treatment with GSK3772847 may be beneficial for patients with uncontrolled asthma. Further studies are warranted.

Plasma proteins elevated in severe asthma despite oral steroid use and unrelated to Type-2 inflammation.

RATIONALE: Asthma phenotyping requires novel biomarker discovery. OBJECTIVES: To identify plasma biomarkers associated with asthma phenotypes by application of a new proteomic panel to samples from two well-characterised cohorts of severe (SA) and mild-to-moderate (MMA) asthmatics, COPD subjects and healthy controls (HCs). METHODS: An antibody-based array targeting 177 proteins predominantly involved in pathways relevant to inflammation, lipid metabolism, signal transduction and extracellular matrix was applied to plasma from 525 asthmatics and HCs in the U-BIOPRED cohort, and 142 subjects with asthma and COPD from the validation cohort BIOAIR. Effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS) were determined by a 2-week, placebo-controlled OCS trial in BIOAIR, and confirmed by relation to objective OCS measures in U-BIOPRED. RESULTS: In U-BIOPRED, 110 proteins were significantly different, mostly elevated, in SA compared to MMA and HCs. 10 proteins were elevated in SA versus MMA in both U-BIOPRED and BIOAIR (alpha-1-antichymotrypsin, apolipoprotein-E, complement component 9, complement factor I, macrophage inflammatory protein-3, interleukin-6, sphingomyelin phosphodiesterase 3, TNF receptor superfamily member 11a, transforming growth factor-ß and glutathione S-transferase). OCS treatment decreased most proteins, yet differences between SA and MMA remained following correction for OCS use. Consensus clustering of U-BIOPRED protein data yielded six clusters associated with asthma control, quality of life, blood neutrophils, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and body mass index, but not Type-2 inflammatory biomarkers. The mast cell specific enzyme carboxypeptidase A3 was one major contributor to cluster differentiation. CONCLUSIONS: The plasma proteomic panel revealed previously unexplored yet potentially useful Type-2-independent biomarkers and validated several proteins with established involvement in the pathophysiology of SA.

From DREAM to REALITI-A and beyond: Mepolizumab for the treatment of eosinophil-driven diseases.

Effective treatment of inflammatory diseases is often challenging owing to their heterogeneous pathophysiology. Understanding of the underlying disease mechanisms is improving and it is now clear that eosinophils play a complex pathophysiological role in a broad range of type 2 inflammatory diseases. Standard of care for these conditions often still includes oral corticosteroids (OCS) and/or cytotoxic immune therapies, which are associated with debilitating side effects. Selective, biological eosinophil-reducing agents provide treatment options that improve clinical symptoms associated with eosinophilic inflammation and reduce OCS use. Mepolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes interleukin-5, the major cytokine involved in eosinophil proliferation, activation, and survival. Mepolizumab is approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and hypereosinophilic syndrome. Additionally, the efficacy of add-on mepolizumab has been observed in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with an eosinophilic phenotype. Here, we review the development, approval, and real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, from the DREAM to REALITI-A studies, and describe how knowledge from this journey extended to the use of mepolizumab and other biologics across a broad spectrum of eosinophilic diseases.

Stopping versus continuing long-term mepolizumab treatment in severe eosinophilic asthma (COMET study).

BACKGROUND: The long-term efficacy and safety of mepolizumab for treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are well established. Here, we examine the clinical impact of stopping mepolizumab after long-term use. METHODS: COMET (NCT02555371) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study. Patients who had completed COLUMBA (NCT01691859) or COSMEX (NCT02135692) and received continuous mepolizumab treatment for ≥3 years were randomised 1:1 to stop (switch to placebo) or continue subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Primary end-point: time to first clinically significant exacerbation; secondary end-points: time to first exacerbation requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit, time to decrease in asthma control (≥0.5-point increase in Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score from COMET baseline) and blood eosinophil count ratio to COMET baseline. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Patients stopping (n=151) versus continuing (n=144) mepolizumab had significantly shorter times to first clinically significant exacerbation (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% CI 1.17-2.22; p=0.004) and decrease in asthma control (hazard ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.13-2.02; p=0.005), and higher blood eosinophil counts at week 52 (270 versus 40 cells·µL-1; ratio (stopping versus continuing) 6.19, 95% CI 4.89-7.83; p<0.001). Differences in efficacy outcomes between groups were observed when assessed from week 12 (16 weeks after last mepolizumab dose). Exacerbations requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit were rare. Adverse events in patients continuing mepolizumab were consistent with previous studies. For patients who stopped mepolizumab, the safety profile was consistent with other eosinophilic asthma populations. CONCLUSION: Patients who stopped mepolizumab had an increase in exacerbations and reduced asthma control versus those who continued.

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

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

Overuse of Oral Corticosteroids, Underuse of Inhaled Corticosteroids, and Implications for Biologic Therapy in Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma patients using high cumulative doses of oral corticosteroids (OCSs) are at risk of serious adverse events and are increasingly being treated with steroid-sparing asthma biologics. However, it is unknown whether prescribing these expensive biologics is always justified. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) assess the prevalence of asthma patients using high cumulative doses of OCSs, (2) explore the role of suboptimal inhaler therapy, and (3) estimate the proportion of patients to whom asthma biologics might be prescribed unnecessarily. METHODS: All adults (n = 5,002) with at least 1 prescription of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (≥500-1,000 mcg/day fluticasone-equivalent) and/or OCSs (GINA step 4-5) in 2010 were selected from a pharmacy database including 500,500 Dutch inhabitants, and sent questionnaires. Of 2,312 patients who returned questionnaires, 929 had asthma. We calculated the annual cumulative OCS dose and prescription fillings and checked inhaler technique in a sample of 60 patients. Patients estimated to have good adherence and inhaler proficiency who still required high doses of OCSs (≥420 mg/year) were considered candidates for initiating biologic treatment. RESULTS: 29.5% of asthma patients on GINA 4-5 therapy used high doses of OCSs, of which 78.1% were likely to have poor therapy adherence or inadequate inhaler technique. Only 21.9% were considered definitive candidates for biologic therapy. CONCLUSION: High OCS use in Dutch GINA 4-5 asthma patients was common. However, in 4 out of 5 patients adherence to inhaled corticosteroid therapy and/or inhalation technique was considered suboptimal. Since optimizing inhaler therapy may reduce the need for OCSs, this should be mandatory before prescribing expensive steroid-sparing drugs.