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.).

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of itepekimab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from two terminated phase II trials.

Interleukin-33 (IL-33) is a proinflammatory alarmin cytokine released by damaged epithelial tissue cells that initiates and amplifies both type 1 and type 2 inflammatory cascades. A role for IL-33 in atopic dermatitis (AD; a chronic, relapsing type 2 inflammatory disease of the skin) has been proposed. Itepekimab is a novel human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against IL-33, currently in clinical development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Two global phase II studies-a dose-ranging itepekimab monotherapy study (NCT03738423) and a proof-of-concept study of itepekimab alone and in combination with dupilumab (NCT03736967)-were conducted in patients with moderate-to-severe AD to assess safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy; both studies were terminated following an interim analysis of the proof-of-concept study, which failed to demonstrate the efficacy of itepekimab. In these two studies, itepekimab exhibited linear and dose-proportional pharmacokinetics. Pharmacodynamics of total IL-33 indicated that itepekimab saturated binding to the target in serum at 300 mg q2w and q4w doses, and decreased blood eosinophil counts. Concentration-time profiles of itepekimab and total IL-33 were similar for itepekimab with or without dupilumab, and between East Asian and non-East Asian subgroups. Itepekimab was generally well tolerated, both alone and in combination with dupilumab. The lack of clinical efficacy for itepekimab observed in these studies suggests that IL-33 may not be a key pathogenic driver in moderate-to-severe AD.

Safety and efficacy of itepekimab in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: a genetic association study and randomised, double-blind, phase 2a trial.

BACKGROUND: Genetic data implicate IL-33 in asthma susceptibility. Itepekimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-33, demonstrated clinical activity in asthma, with potential in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this study we first aimed to test the hypothesis that genetic variants in the IL-33 pathway were also associated with COPD. On the basis of the strong association of IL-33 pathway genes with pulmonary diseases like asthma and COPD, we conducted this phase 2a trial to assess the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD on a stable regimen of triple-inhaled or double-inhaled background maintenance therapy. METHODS: In this two-part study, genetic analyses of loss-of-function and gain-of-function variants in the IL-33 pathway, previously associated with asthma risk, were initially characterised for COPD. We then did a double-blind, phase 2a trial comparing itepekimab with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD despite standard therapy, at 83 study sites in ten countries. Patients aged 40-75 years who were current or former smokers, had been diagnosed with COPD for at least 1 year, and were on a stable regimen of triple-inhaled or double-inhaled background maintenance therapy, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive itepekimab 300 mg or placebo, administered as two subcutaneous injections every 2 weeks for 24-52 weeks. The primary endpoint of the phase 2a trial was annualised rate of moderate-to-severe acute exacerbations of COPD during the treatment period. The key secondary outcome was change in prebronchodilator FEV1 from baseline to weeks 16-24. Prespecified subgroup analyses were done for each of the endpoints, including by smoking status. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in all participants who received at least one dose of assigned treatment (modified intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03546907). FINDINGS: Genetic analyses demonstrated association of loss of function in IL33 with reduced COPD risk, and gain of function in IL33 and IL1RL1 variants with increased risk. Subsequent to this, in the phase 2 trial, 343 patients were randomly assigned to placebo (n=171) or itepekimab (n=172) from July 16, 2018, to Feb 19, 2020. Annualised rates of acute exacerbations of COPD were 1·61 (95% CI 1·32-1·97) in the placebo group and 1·30 (1·05-1·61) in the itepekimab group (relative risk [RR] 0·81 [95% CI 0·61-1·07], p=0·13), and least squares mean prebronchodilator FEV1 change from baseline to weeks 16-24 was 0·0 L (SD 0·02) and 0·06 L (0·02; difference 0·06 L [95% CI 0·01-0·10], p=0·024). When analysis was restricted to former smokers, treatment with itepekimab was associated with nominally significant reductions in acute exacerbations of COPD (RR 0·58 [95% CI 0·39-0·85], p=0·0061) and FEV1 improvement (least squares mean difference 0·09 L [0·02-0·15], p=0·0076) compared with placebo. Current smokers treated with itepekimab showed no treatment benefit versus placebo for exacerbations (RR 1·09 [0·74-1·61], p=0·65) or FEV1 (least squares mean difference 0·02 [-0·05 to 0·09], p=0·54). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 135 (78%) patients in the itepekimab group and 136 (80%) in the placebo group. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis (28 [16%] in the itepekimab group vs 29 [17%] in the placebo group), bronchitis (18 [10%] vs 14 [8%]), headache (14 [8%] vs 23 [13%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [8%] vs 15 [9%]). INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint in the overall population was not met, subgroup analysis showed that itepekimab reduced exacerbation rate and improved lung function in former smokers with COPD. Two phase 3 clinical studies are ongoing to confirm the efficacy and safety profile of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Sputum RNA signature in allergic asthmatics following allergen bronchoprovocation test.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled allergen challenge is a validated disease model of allergic asthma offering useful pharmacodynamic assessment of pharmacotherapeutic effects in a limited number of subjects. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether an RNA signature can be identified from induced sputum following an inhaled allergen challenge, whether a RNA signature could be modulated by limited doses of inhaled fluticasone, and whether these gene expression profiles would correlate with the clinical endpoints measured in this study. METHODS: Thirteen non-smoking, allergic subjects with mild-to-moderate asthma participated in a randomised, placebo-controlled, 2-period cross-over study following a single-blind placebo run-in period. Each period consisted of three consecutive days, separated by a wash-out period of at least 3 weeks. Subjects randomly received inhaled fluticasone ((FP) MDI; 500 mcg BID×5 doses in total) or placebo. On day 2, house dust mite extract was inhaled and airway response was measured by FEV1 at predefined time points until 7 h post-allergen. Sputum was induced by NaCl 4.5%, processed and analysed at 24 h pre-allergen and 7 and 24 h post-allergen. RNA was isolated from eligible sputum cell pellets (<80% squamous of 500 cells), amplified according to NuGEN technology, and profiled on Affymetrix arrays. Gene expression changes from baseline and fluticasone treatment effects were evaluated using a mixed effects ANCOVA model at 7 and at 24 h post-allergen challenge. RESULTS: Inhaled allergen-induced statistically significant gene expression changes in sputum, which were effectively blunted by fluticasone (adjusted p<0.025). Forty-seven RNA signatures were selected from these responses for correlation analyses and further validation. This included Th2 mRNA levels for cytokines, chemokines, high-affinity IgE receptor FCER1A, histamine receptor HRH4, and enzymes and receptors in the arachidonic pathway. Individual messengers from the 47 RNA signatures correlated significantly with lung function and sputum eosinophil counts. CONCLUSION: Our RNA extraction and profiling protocols allowed reproducible assessments of inflammatory signatures in sputum including quantification of drug effects on this response in allergic asthmatics. This approach offers novel possibilities for the development of pharmacodynamic (PD) biomarkers in asthma.

Kinetics of TH2 biomarkers in sputum of asthmatics following inhaled allergen.

BACKGROUND: Allergen-induced late airway response offers important pharmacodynamic targets, including T helper 2 (TH2) biomarkers. However, detection of inflammatory markers has been limited in dithiothreitol-processed sputum. OBJECTIVES: To test whether allergen-induced TH2 inflammatory markers can be reproducibly quantified by sensitive detection techniques in ultracentrifuged sputum and the effect of fluticasone (FP) on these endpoints. METHODS: Thirteen allergic asthmatics with dual allergen-induced airway responses, documented during a single-blind placebo run-in period, participated in a double-blind, two-period crossover study. Each period consisted of three consecutive days, separated by ≥3 weeks. Following randomization, subjects inhaled FP (500 µg bid, five doses total) or placebo. On Day 2 in each study period, allergen challenge was performed and airway response measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) until 7 h post-challenge. Sputum was induced 24 h pre-allergen and 7 and 24 h post-allergen. Sputum samples were split into two portions: TH2 biomarkers were quantified by Meso Scale multiplex platform following ultracentrifugation, and cell differentials were counted on Giemsa-May-Grünwald-stained cytospins. Allergen-induced changes in inflammatory endpoints were compared between FP and placebo using a mixed model ANCOVA. RESULTS: Inhaled allergen induced dual airway responses in all subjects during both placebo periods with reproducible late asthmatic response (LAR) and increased sputum inflammatory biomarkers (IL-2, IL-4, IL-13, and eotaxin-1) and eosinophil counts. FP effectively blunted both the LAR and the inflammatory biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Combining novel, sensitive quantification methods with ultracentrifugation allows reproducible quantification of sputum biomarkers following allergen challenge, reversed by FP. This approach allows non-invasive identification of pharmacodynamic targets for anti-asthma therapies.