BACKGROUND:Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for IL-4 and IL-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation, including IgE-mediated allergic inflammation in asthma. In the LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST (NCT02414854) study, dupilumab reduced severe asthma exacerbations and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma with greater efficacy observed in patients with elevated type 2 inflammatory biomarkers (blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide) at baseline. OBJECTIVE:We assessed dupilumab's effect on key asthma outcomes in QUEST patients with/without evidence of allergic asthma (total serum IgE \u226530 IU/mL and \u22651 perennial aeroallergen-specific IgE \u22650.35 kU/L at baseline). METHODS:Severe exacerbation rates and change from baseline in FEV1, asthma control, and markers of type 2 inflammation during the 52-week treatment period were assessed. RESULTS:In the allergic asthma subgroup (n\u00a0= 1083), dupilumab 200/300 mg every 2 weeks versus placebo reduced severe asthma exacerbation rates (-36.9%/-45.5%; both P < .01), improved FEV1 at week 12 (0.13 L/0.16 L; both P < .001; improvements were evident by the first evaluation at week 2) with greater efficacy observed in patients with elevated type 2 inflammatory biomarkers at baseline, and improved asthma control. Dupilumab treatment also resulted in rapid and sustained reductions in type 2 inflammatory biomarkers. Comparable results were observed in patients without evidence of allergic asthma (n\u00a0= 819). CONCLUSION:Dupilumab reduced severe exacerbation rates, improved FEV1 and asthma control, and suppressed type 2 inflammatory biomarkers in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma with or without evidence of allergic asthma, highlighting the key role of IL-4 and IL-13 in airway inflammation.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:The dose-response relationship of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/fast-onset long acting beta agonist (LABA) reliever therapy has not been formally addressed. The objective of this retrospective analysis is to ascertain from the available evidence whether ICS/fast-onset LABA administered as reliever therapy has a different dose-response relationship than maintenance fixed dose ICS/fast-onset LABA therapy in reducing risk of severe exacerbations. METHODS:A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which randomised treatments included either i) budesonide/formoterol reliever monotherapy versus budesonide/formoterol fixed dose maintenance with short acting beta agonist (SABA) reliever therapy, or ii) budesonide/formoterol reliever therapy in addition to budesonide/formoterol maintenance versus higher fixed dose maintenance budesonide/formoterol with SABA as reliever therapy. Eligible studies were reviewed to allow determination of the relative potency and efficacy of the comparator regimens to reduce the risk of a severe exacerbation. RESULTS:The one RCT of budesonide/formoterol reliever monotherapy showed a 4.6-fold (95% CI 2.9 to 7.3) greater potency than budesonide/formoterol fixed dose maintenance plus SABA reliever therapy in reducing the risk of severe exacerbations. In the one RCT that compared budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy with higher fixed dose maintenance budesonide/formoterol plus SABA reliever therapy, there was an additional 26% (95% CI 4 to 42%) reduction in severe exacerbation risk with the addition of budesonide/formoterol reliever therapy to maintenance budesonide/formoterol, despite a 25% lower total budesonide/formoterol dose. CONCLUSION:The limited available evidence suggests that budesonide/formoterol reliever therapy has greater potency and efficacy than budesonide/formoterol fixed dose maintenance plus SABA reliever therapy in reducing the risk of a severe exacerbation. This is an important concept which has the potential to guide clinical practice in asthma, although the small number of studies available highlights the need for further research to better define these pharmacological properties.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: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\u00b74% of patients in the biomarker strategy group were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 compared with 18\u00b75% of patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1\u00b771 [95% CI 0\u00b780-3\u00b763]; p=0\u00b717). 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\u00b77% of patients) compared with the control group (5\u00b70% of patients; aOR 11\u00b748 [95% CI 1\u00b735-97\u00b783]; p=0\u00b7026). 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.
\n \n\n \n \nInhaled corticosteroids (ICS) combined with bronchodilators can reduce the frequency of exacerbations in some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is evidence, however, that ICS are frequently used in patients where their benefit has not been established. Therefore, there is a need for a personalised approach to the use of ICS in COPD and to consider withdrawal of ICS in patients without a clear indication. This document reports European Respiratory Society recommendations regarding ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD.Comprehensive evidence synthesis was performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the question: should ICS be withdrawn in patients with COPD? The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence synthesis was discussed and recommendations formulated by a committee with expertise in COPD and guideline methodology.After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, and feasibility and acceptability of interventions, the guideline panel made: 1) conditional recommendation for the withdrawal of ICS in patients with COPD without a history of frequent exacerbations, 2) strong recommendation not to withdraw ICS in patients with blood eosinophil counts \u2265300\u2005eosinophils\u00b7\u00b5L-1 and 3) strong recommendation to treat with one or two long-acting bronchodilators if ICS are withdrawn.A conditional recommendation indicates that there was uncertainty about the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of the intervention, and that well-informed patients may make different choices regarding whether to have or not have the specific intervention.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND:Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation. In phase 2b (NCT01854047) and phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST (NCT02414854), add-on dupilumab 200/300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) reduced severe exacerbations, improved prebronchodilator (pre-BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 ) and quality-of-life measures and was generally well tolerated in patients with uncontrolled, persistent (phase 2b) or moderate-to-severe (phase 3) asthma. METHODS:In patients on high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with type 2-high asthma (subgroups including baseline blood eosinophils \u2265150/300 cells/\u00b5L and/or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] \u226525 ppb), annualized severe exacerbation rates over the treatment period, changes from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 and asthma control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-5]) were analyzed. RESULTS:In high-dose ICS type 2-high subgroups, dupilumab 200/300 mg q2w versus placebo in the phase 2b (24 weeks) and phase 3 (52 weeks) studies significantly reduced severe exacerbations by 55%-69%/57%-60% (all P<.05) and 53%-69%/48%-66% (all P<.001), respectively, except in patients with \u2265300 eosinophils/\u00b5L in phase 2b study (24%/50% (P=.52/.15). Across subgroups, pre-BD FEV1 improved by 0.18-0.22 L/0.19-0.24 L (all P<.05) and 0.23-0.36 L/0.15-0.25 L (all P<.01) and ACQ-5 scores were reduced by 0.46-0.55/0.47-0.85 (all P<.05) and 0.38-0.50/0.24-0.30 (all P<.05), respectively, except dupilumab 200 mg q2w in phase 2b in patients with FeNO \u226525 ppb (0.41; P=.09). Dupilumab was also effective in patients taking medium-dose ICS. CONCLUSION:Dupilumab significantly reduced severe exacerbations and improved lung function and asthma control in patients with type 2-high asthma on high-dose ICS at baseline.
\n \n\n \n \nThe development of mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, is an example of a clinical development program that evolved over time based on sound, basic scientific principles. Initial clinical data on the effects of mepolizumab on lung function in a general asthmatic population were disappointing. However, it became clear that mepolizumab may be more effective against other clinical endpoints, particularly asthma exacerbations, in patients with more severe disease. Furthermore, a developing understanding of asthma disease pathobiology led to the identification of an appropriate target population and predictive biomarker for mepolizumab treatment: patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and blood eosinophil count. Mepolizumab use provides clinically meaningful benefits in this target population, fulfilling an unmet need. This Clinical Commentary Review describes the clinical development of mepolizumab and details of how this program informed the development of other biologic therapies in patients with severe asthma. This account highlights how a personalized approach toward treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, supported by a large body of scientific evidence, ultimately led to new and effective treatments and improved patient outcomes.
\n \n\n \n \n