Association Between T2-related Comorbidities and Effectiveness of Biologics in Severe Asthma.

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV1% predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV1% predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.

Blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide are prognostic and predictive biomarkers in childhood asthma.

BACKGROUND: Blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (Feno) are prognostic biomarkers for exacerbations and predict lung function responses to dupilumab in adolescents and adults with asthma. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the relationship between baseline blood eosinophils and Feno and response to dupilumab in children with asthma. METHODS: Children aged 6 to 11 years with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma (n = 408) were randomized to receive dupilumab 100/200 mg by body weight or volume-matched placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. Annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction and least squares mean change in prebronchodilator percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV1) at week 12 were assessed according to cutoff baseline levels for Feno (<20 ppb vs ≥20 ppb) and blood eosinophil count (<150, ≥150 to <300, ≥300 to <500, and ≥500 cells/µL). Quadrant analyses in populations defined by biomarker thresholds and spline models across continuous end points assessed the relationship with Feno and eosinophil count. Interaction testing evaluated the independent roles of Feno and blood eosinophils as predictive markers. RESULTS: Exacerbation risk and magnitude of AER reduction increased in subgroups with higher baseline biomarker levels. Quadrant analyses revealed that disease of patients with either elevated Feno or eosinophil counts demonstrated a clinical response to dupilumab. Interaction testing indicated blood eosinophil counts or Feno independently added value as predictive biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: In children with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, blood eosinophil counts and Feno are clinically relevant biomarkers to identify those at risk for asthma exacerbations, as well as those with disease with clinical response to dupilumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Liberty Asthma VOYAGE ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02948959.

Efficacy and Safety of Itepekimab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE, interleukin-4 and -13, and interleukin-5 are effective in treating severe type 2 asthma, but new targets are needed. Itepekimab is a new monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33. The efficacy and safety of itepekimab as monotherapy, as well as in combination with dupilumab, in patients with asthma are unclear. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, adults with moderate-to-severe asthma receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (at a dose of 300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. After randomization, LABA was discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary end point was an event indicating a loss of asthma control, assessed in the itepekimab group and the combination group, as compared with the placebo group. Secondary and other end points included lung function, asthma control, quality of life, type 2 biomarkers, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients underwent randomization. By 12 weeks, an event indicating a loss of asthma control occurred in 22% of the patients in the itepekimab group, 27% of those in the combination group, and 19% of those in the dupilumab group, as compared with 41% of those in the placebo group; the corresponding odds ratios as compared with placebo were as follows: in the itepekimab group, 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.88; P = 0.02); in the combination group, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.26 to 1.06; P = 0.07); and in the dupilumab group, 0.33 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70). As compared with placebo, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second before bronchodilator use increased with the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapies but not with the combination therapy. Itepekimab treatment improved asthma control and quality of life, as compared with placebo, and led to a greater reduction in the mean blood eosinophil count. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all four trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Interleukin-33 blockade with itepekimab led to a lower incidence of events indicating a loss of asthma control than placebo and improved lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03387852.).

Dupilumab in Children with Uncontrolled Moderate-to-Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Children with moderate-to-severe asthma continue to have disease complications despite the receipt of standard-of-care therapy. The monoclonal antibody dupilumab has been approved for the treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma as well as with other type 2 inflammatory diseases. METHODS: In this 52-week phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 408 children between the ages of 6 and 11 years who had uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma to receive a subcutaneous injection of dupilumab (at a dose of 100 mg for those weighing ≤30 kg and 200 mg for those weighing >30 kg) or matched placebo every 2 weeks. All the children continued to receive a stable dose of standard background therapy. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in the percentage of predicted prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV1) at week 12 and in the score on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 Interviewer-Administered (ACQ-7-IA) at week 24. End points were evaluated in the two primary efficacy populations who had either a type 2 inflammatory asthma phenotype (≥150 blood eosinophils per cubic millimeter or a fraction of exhaled nitric oxide of ≥20 ppb at baseline) or a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per cubic millimeter at baseline. RESULTS: In patients with the type 2 inflammatory phenotype, the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.42) with dupilumab and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.54 to 1.03) with placebo (relative risk reduction in the dupilumab group, 59.3%; 95% CI, 39.5 to 72.6; P<0.001). The mean (±SE) change from baseline in the ppFEV1 was 10.5±1.0 percentage points with dupilumab and 5.3±1.4 percentage points with placebo (mean difference, 5.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.1 to 8.3; P<0.001). Dupilumab also resulted in significantly better asthma control than placebo (P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the patients with an eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per cubic millimeter at baseline. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among children with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, those who received add-on dupilumab had fewer asthma exacerbations and better lung function and asthma control than those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; Liberty Asthma VOYAGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02948959.).

Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort.

BACKGROUND: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma. METHODS: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day. RESULTS: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria.

Analysis of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adult patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Investigation for the presence of asthma comorbidities is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma because their presence can complicate asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To understand the prevalence and pattern of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adults with severe asthma and their association with asthma-related outcomes. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry from 22 countries. A total of 30 comorbidities were identified and categorized a priori as any of the following: (1) potentially type 2-related comorbidities, (2) potentially oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related comorbidities, or (3) comorbidities mimicking or aggravating asthma. The association between comorbidities and asthma-related outcomes was investigated using multivariable models adjusted for country, age at enrollment, and sex (ie male or female). RESULTS: Of the 11,821 patients, 69%, 67%, and 55% had at least 1 potentially type 2-related, potentially OCS-related, or mimicking or aggravating comorbidities, respectively; 57% had 3 or more comorbidities, and 33% had comorbidities in all 3 categories. Patients with allergic rhinitis, nasal polyposis, and chronic rhinosinusitis experienced 1.12 (P = .003), 1.16 (P < .001), and 1.29 times (P < .001) more exacerbations per year, respectively, than those without. Patients with nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis were 40% and 46% more likely (P < .001), respectively, to have received long-term (LT) OCS. All assessed potential OCS-related comorbidities (except obesity) were associated with a greater likelihood of LTOCS use (odds ratios [ORs]: 1.23-2.77) and, except for dyslipidemia, with a greater likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.29-1.68). All mimicking or aggravating comorbidities assessed were associated with more exacerbations (1.24-1.68 times more), all (except bronchiectasis) with increased likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.57-1.81), and all (except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with increased likelihood of LTOCS use (ORs: 1.37-1.57). A greater number of comorbidities was associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: In a global study, comorbidity or multimorbidity is reported in most adults with severe asthma and is associated with poorer asthma-related outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The International Severe Asthma Registry database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance [ENCEPP]/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EMA 2014; EUPAS44024) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulations, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=48848). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1121).

Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma. METHODS: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%). RESULTS: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment. CONCLUSION: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).

Assessment of dupilumab in children with moderate-to-severe type 2 asthma with or without evidence of allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Cytokines, such as interleukins (IL)-4/5/13, play a key role in multiple type 2 inflammatory diseases, including allergic asthma. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for IL-4/IL-13, inhibiting signaling. In this post hoc analysis of VOYAGE (NCT02948959), dupilumab efficacy was evaluated in patients aged 6-11 years with type 2 asthma with or without evidence of allergic asthma (baseline serum total IgE ≥30 IU/mL and ≥1 perennial aeroallergen-specific IgE ≥0.35kU/L). METHODS: Annualized severe exacerbation rates (AER) and changes in pre-bronchodilator (Pre-BD) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1 ), percent-predicted pre-BD FEV1 (ppFEV1 ), and Asthma Control Score (ACQ)-7 were assessed during the treatment period. RESULTS: 350 children (261 with and 89 without evidence of allergic asthma) were included. Dupilumab versus placebo significantly reduced AER in patients with (0.24 vs. 0.62, relative risk reduction [RRR]: 62% [95% CI, 39-76], P < .0001) and without (0.39 vs. 0.80, RRR: 51% [95% CI, 0-76], P < .05) evidence of allergic asthma. Significant improvements in ppFEV1 , pre-bronchodilator FEV1 , and ACQ-7 scores were observed in dupilumab versus placebo throughout the treatment period in patients with evidence of allergic asthma. In patients without evidence of allergic asthma, numerical improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and asthma control were observed by Week 52. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab versus placebo reduced asthma exacerbations in children with type 2 asthma irrespective of evidence of allergic asthma; similar trends were observed in changes in lung function. Significant improvement in asthma control was observed in patients with evidence of allergic asthma, but not in those without.

Comparative effectiveness of anti-IL5 and anti-IgE biologic classes in patients with severe asthma eligible for both.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and persistent airflow obstruction.

BACKGROUND: The 52-week, phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST study (NCT02414854) in patients aged above or equal to 12 years with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab 200 mg and 300 mg every 2 weeks vs matched placebo. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether dupilumab improves clinical outcomes in QUEST patients with persistent airflow obstruction (PAO) defined as post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio less than 0.7 at baseline. METHODS: End points were annualized rate of severe exacerbations, pre and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second over time, proportion achieving reversal of PAO, and quality of life. Efficacy was evaluated in patients with or without PAO at baseline in subpopulations with eosinophils ≥ 150 cells/µL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 25 ppb or eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL and FeNO ≥ 25 ppb. RESULTS: Of 1902 patients enrolled in QUEST, 1039 (55%) had PAO at baseline. Dupilumab vs placebo rapidly and significantly improved lung function in patients with PAO and elevated type 2 inflammatory biomarkers at baseline. Dupilumab improved probability of reversing airflow obstruction (hazard ratio vs placebo 1.616 [95% confidence interval, 1.272-2.052] and 1.813 [1.291-2.546]; both P < .001) and significantly reduced severe exacerbations by 69% (relative risk, 0.411; 95% confidence interval [0.327-0.516]; P < .0001) and by 75% (0.252 [0.178-0.356]; P < .0001) in patients with PAO with eosinophils ≥ 150 cells/µL or FeNO ≥ 25 ppb and eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL and FeNO ≥ 25 ppb, respectively. Similar results were observed in patient subgroups without PAO. CONCLUSION: In patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, treatment with dupilumab facilitates reversal of PAO status and improves clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02414854.

Dupilumab efficacy and safety in Latin American patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma: phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST study.

OBJECTIVE: While advances in asthma care have been made in Latin America, there is still a large unmet need in patients with uncontrolled asthma. This post hoc analysis of the QUEST study assessed safety and efficacy of dupilumab in the subgroup of patients enrolled in Latin American countries with a type 2 inflammatory asthma phenotype (blood eosinophils ≥ 150cells/µL or FeNO ≥25ppb). METHODS: LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST (NCT02414854) was a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma. Eligible patients ≥ 12 years of age were randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive 52 weeks of add-on subcutaneous dupilumab 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks or matched-volume placebos. Pre-specified co-primary efficacy endpoints were the annualized rate of severe exacerbations during the treatment period and the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at treatment week 12. Asthma control, changes in asthma biomarker levels, and dupilumab safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: 530 (27.9% of the overall QUEST population; dupilumab: 353, placebo: 177) Latin-American patients were recruited; 420 (79.2%) had a type 2 inflammatory asthma phenotype. Dupilumab vs placebo reduced the annualized rate of severe exacerbations by 52.7% (P < 0.001) and increased pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at week 12 by 0.15 L (P < 0.001), in the type 2 population. Safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the results in the overall population, dupilumab reduced the risk of severe asthma exacerbations and improved lung function in Latin American patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma and a type 2 phenotype.

Phase 3b randomized controlled trial of fevipiprant in patients with nasal polyposis with asthma (THUNDER).

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is associated with asthma, particularly of late onset. Current treatment options for CRSwNP have limitations, and there is an unmet need for other safe and effective therapies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the THUNDER study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the prostaglandin D2 receptor 2 (DP2) antagonist fevipiprant in patients with CRSwNP and concomitant asthma, measured by improvement in nasal polyp score (primary end point), nasal congestion score, Sinonasal Outcome Test 22 score, and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score. METHODS: THUNDER was a phase 3b, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 16-week study of fevipiprant 150 mg or 450 mg once daily versus placebo. All patients received intranasal mometasone furoate 200 µg daily. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to fevipiprant 150 mg (n = 32), fevipiprant 450 mg (n = 34), or placebo (n = 32). Mean (SE) change from baseline in nasal polyp score at week 16 was 0.20 (0.224) for fevipiprant 150 mg, -0.10 (0.216) for fevipiprant 450 mg, and 0.14 (0.233) for placebo. Mean treatment difference was 0.05 (95% confidence interval, -0.59, 0.70; adjusted P = .979) for fevipiprant 150 mg versus placebo and -0.25 (95% confidence interval, -0.88, 0.39; adjusted P = .656) for fevipiprant 450 mg versus placebo. There was no meaningful difference in the secondary end points for fevipiprant versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: THUNDER provided no evidence of a role for fevipiprant in the treatment of patients with CRSwNP and asthma; future studies may establish a role for other DP2 antagonists, specifically in patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease.

Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: Treatment efficacy by comorbidity and blood eosinophil count.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab reduced nasal polyp (NP) size and nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis with NP. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the efficacy of mepolizumab in patients from SYNAPSE grouped by comorbid asthma, aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), and baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). METHODS: SYNAPSE, a randomized, double-blind, 52-week study (NCT03085797), included patients with severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with NP eligible for surgery despite intranasal corticosteroid treatment. Patients received 4-weekly subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo plus standard of care for 52 weeks. Coprimary end points were change in total endoscopic NP score (week 52) and nasal obstruction visual analog scale score (weeks 49-52). Subgroup analyses by comorbid asthma and AERD status, and post hoc by BEC, were exploratory. RESULTS: Analyses included 407 patients (289 with asthma; 108 with AERD; 371 and 278 with BEC counts ≥150 or ≥300 cells/µL, respectively). The proportion of patients with greater than or equal to 1-point improvement from baseline in NP score was higher with mepolizumab versus placebo across comorbid diseases (asthma: 52.9% vs 29.5%; AERD: 51.1% vs 20.6%) and baseline BEC subgroups (<150 cells/µL: 55.0% vs 31.3%; ≥150 cells/µL: 49.5% vs 28.1%; <300 cells/µL: 50.7% vs 29.0%; ≥300 cells/µL: 50.4% vs 28.1%). A similar trend was observed in patients without comorbid asthma or AERD. More patients had more than 3-point improvement in nasal obstruction VAS score with mepolizumab versus placebo across comorbid subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab reduced polyp size and nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis with NP regardless of the presence of comorbid asthma or AERD.

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.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with uncontrolled severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and a clinical diagnosis of NSAID-ERD: Results from two randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: About one-tenth of patients with difficult-to-treat chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) have comorbid non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD). Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13 receptor component, is an approved add-on treatment in severe CRSwNP. This post hoc analysis evaluated dupilumab efficacy and safety in patients with CRSwNP with/without NSAID-ERD. METHODS: Data were pooled from the phase 3 SINUS-24 and SINUS-52 studies in adults with uncontrolled severe CRSwNP who received dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks. CRSwNP, nasal airflow, lung function, and asthma control outcomes at Week 24 were evaluated, and treatment-subgroup interactions were assessed for patients with and without NSAID-ERD. RESULTS: Of 724 patients, 204 (28.2%) had a diagnosis of NSAID-ERD. At Week 24, least squares mean treatment differences demonstrated significant improvements in nasal polyp score, nasal congestion (NC), Lund-Mackay computed tomography, 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), Total Symptom Score (TSS), rhinosinusitis severity visual analog scale, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), six-item Asthma Control Questionnaire score, and improvement in smell with dupilumab versus placebo (all p < .0001) in patients with NSAID-ERD. Treatment comparisons demonstrated significantly greater improvements with dupilumab in patients with versus without NSAID-ERD for NC (p = .0044), SNOT-22 (p = .0313), TSS (p = .0425), and PNIF (p = .0123). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncontrolled severe CRSwNP, dupilumab significantly improved objective measures and patient-reported symptoms to a greater extent in the presence of comorbid NSAID-ERD than without. Dupilumab was well tolerated in patients with/without NSAID-ERD.

Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Glucocorticoid-Dependent Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a fully human anti-interleukin-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody that blocks both interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling. Its effectiveness in reducing oral glucocorticoid use in patients with severe asthma while maintaining asthma control is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned 210 patients with oral glucocorticoid-treated asthma to receive add-on dupilumab (at a dose of 300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. After a glucocorticoid dose-adjustment period before randomization, glucocorticoid doses were adjusted in a downward trend from week 4 to week 20 and then maintained at a stable dose for 4 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage reduction in the glucocorticoid dose at week 24. Key secondary end points were the proportion of patients at week 24 with a reduction of at least 50% in the glucocorticoid dose and the proportion of patients with a reduction to a glucocorticoid dose of less than 5 mg per day. Severe exacerbation rates and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) before bronchodilator use were also assessed. RESULTS: The percentage change in the glucocorticoid dose was -70.1% in the dupilumab group, as compared with -41.9% in the placebo group (P<0.001); 80% versus 50% of the patients had a dose reduction of at least 50%, 69% versus 33% had a dose reduction to less than 5 mg per day, and 48% versus 25% completely discontinued oral glucocorticoid use. Despite reductions in the glucocorticoid dose, in the overall population, dupilumab treatment resulted in a severe exacerbation rate that was 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37 to 74) lower than that in the placebo group and resulted in an FEV1 that was 0.22 liters (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.34) higher. Injection-site reactions were more common with dupilumab than with placebo (9% vs. 4%). Transient blood eosinophilia was observed in more patients in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (14% vs. 1%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with glucocorticoid-dependent severe asthma, dupilumab treatment reduced oral glucocorticoid use while decreasing the rate of severe exacerbations and increasing the FEV1. Transient eosinophilia was observed in approximately 1 in 7 dupilumab-treated patients. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; LIBERTY ASTHMA VENTURE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02528214 .).

Dupilumab Efficacy and Safety in Moderate-to-Severe Uncontrolled Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a fully human anti-interleukin-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody that blocks both interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling. We assessed its efficacy and safety in patients with uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1902 patients 12 years of age or older with uncontrolled asthma in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive add-on subcutaneous dupilumab at a dose of 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks or matched-volume placebos for 52 weeks. The primary end points were the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations and the absolute change from baseline to week 12 in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) before bronchodilator use in the overall trial population. Secondary end points included the exacerbation rate and FEV1 in patients with a blood eosinophil count of 300 or more per cubic millimeter. Asthma control and dupilumab safety were also assessed. RESULTS: The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.53) among patients assigned to 200 mg of dupilumab every 2 weeks and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05) among those assigned to a matched placebo, for a 47.7% lower rate with dupilumab than with placebo (P<0.001); similar results were seen with the dupilumab dose of 300 mg every 2 weeks. At week 12, the FEV1 had increased by 0.32 liters in patients assigned to the lower dose of dupilumab (difference vs. matched placebo, 0.14 liters; P<0.001); similar results were seen with the higher dose. Among patients with a blood eosinophil count of 300 or more per cubic millimeter, the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.48) among those receiving lower-dose dupilumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.38) among those receiving a matched placebo (65.8% lower rate with dupilumab than with placebo; 95% CI, 52.0 to 75.6); similar results were observed with the higher dose. Blood eosinophilia occurred after the start of the intervention in 52 patients (4.1%) who received dupilumab as compared with 4 patients (0.6%) who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, patients who received dupilumab had significantly lower rates of severe asthma exacerbation than those who received placebo, as well as better lung function and asthma control. Greater benefits were seen in patients with higher baseline levels of eosinophils. Hypereosinophilia was observed in some patients. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02414854 .).

Effect of exacerbation history on clinical response to dupilumab in moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02414854) in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma has demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab 200 and 300 mg every 2 weeks versus placebo. This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of dupilumab on efficacy outcomes and asthma control across a range of historical exacerbation rates in patients with type 2-high asthma. METHODS: Annualised severe exacerbation rates over the 52-week treatment period, pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at weeks 12 and 52, and the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) score at weeks 24 and 52 were assessed in patients with ≥1, ≥2 or ≥3 exacerbations in the previous year. Subgroups were stratified by baseline blood eosinophils ≥150 or ≥300 cells·µL-1 or baseline exhaled nitric oxide fraction ≥25 ppb and baseline inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose. RESULTS: Across all type 2-high subgroups, dupilumab versus placebo significantly reduced severe exacerbations by 54-90%, with greater improvements in patients with more exacerbations prior to study initiation. Similarly, improvements in FEV1 (least squares (LS) mean difference versus placebo: ≥1 exacerbations, 0.15-0.25 L; ≥2 exacerbations, 0.12-0.32 L; ≥3 exacerbations, 0.09-0.38 L; majority p<0.05) and ACQ-5 score (LS mean difference range: ≥1 exacerbations, -0.30 to -0.57; ≥2 exacerbations, -0.29 to -0.56; ≥3 exacerbations, -0.43 to -0.61; all p<0.05) were observed, irrespective of prior exacerbation history, across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab significantly reduced severe exacerbations and improved FEV1 and asthma control in patients with elevated type 2 biomarkers irrespective of exacerbation history and baseline ICS dose.

Long-term safety and exploratory efficacy of fevipiprant in patients with inadequately controlled asthma: the SPIRIT randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor 2 (DP2 receptor) pathway is an important regulator of the inflammatory cascade in asthma, which can be stimulated by allergic or non-allergic triggers. Fevipiprant is an oral, non-steroidal, highly selective, reversible antagonist of the DP2 receptor that inhibits the binding of PGD2 and its metabolites. METHODS: SPIRIT, a 2-treatment period (52-week, double-blind and optional 104-week single-blind), randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre, parallel-group study, assessed the long-term safety of fevipiprant (150 mg and 450 mg o.d.) added to standard of care in patients ≥ 12 years with uncontrolled asthma. Stratified block randomisation was used. Patients were randomised in an approximate ratio of 3:3:1 (fevipiprant 150 mg, fevipiprant 450 mg or placebo). Patients were either newly enrolled or had participated in a previous fevipiprant Phase 3 trial. Primary endpoints were: time-to-first treatment emergent adverse event (AE); serious AE; and AE leading to discontinuation from study treatment. Data from both treatment periods were combined for analyses. Data were collected during study site visits. RESULTS: In total, 1093 patients were randomised to receive fevipiprant 150 mg, 1085 to fevipiprant 450 mg, and 360 to placebo. Overall, 1184 patients had ≥ 52 weeks' treatment, while 163 received ≥ 104 weeks' treatment. Both doses were well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo both in new patients and in those enrolled from previous studies. In exploratory analyses, reduced rates of moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbations, increased time-to-first moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation and improved FEV1 were observed for both doses of fevipiprant versus placebo; these were without multiplicity adjustment and should be interpreted with caution. SPIRIT was terminated early, on 16 December 2019, by the Sponsor. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncontrolled asthma, the addition of fevipiprant had a favourable long-term safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03052517, prospectively registered 23 January 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03052517 .

Differentiation of COVID-19 signs and symptoms from allergic rhinitis and common cold: An ARIA-EAACI-GA2 LEN consensus.

BACKGROUND: Although there are many asymptomatic patients, one of the problems of COVID-19 is early recognition of the disease. COVID-19 symptoms are polymorphic and may include upper respiratory symptoms. However, COVID-19 symptoms may be mistaken with the common cold or allergic rhinitis. An ARIA-EAACI study group attempted to differentiate upper respiratory symptoms between the three diseases. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used. The ARIA members who were seeing COVID-19 patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire on the upper airway symptoms of COVID-19, common cold and allergic rhinitis. RESULTS: Among the 192 ARIA members who were invited to respond to the questionnaire, 89 responded and 87 questionnaires were analysed. The consensus was then reported. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the symptom intensity between the three diseases (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi approach enabled the differentiation of upper respiratory symptoms between COVID-19, the common cold and allergic rhinitis. An electronic algorithm will be devised using the questionnaire.