Search

Background: Dupilumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukins‐4/13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation. The TRAVERSE (NCT02134028) open‐label extension study demonstrated the long‐term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients ≥12 years who completed a previous dupilumab asthma study. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in the parent studies. Here, we assess whether dupilumab sustains long‐term efficacy in patients regardless of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose at parent study baseline (PSBL). Methods: Patients from phase 2b (NCT01854047) or phase 3 (QUEST; NCT02414854) studies receiving high‐ or medium‐dose ICS at PSBL and enrolled in TRAVERSE were included. We analyzed unadjusted annualized severe exacerbation rates, change from PSBL in pre‐bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), 5‐item asthma control questionnaire, and type 2 biomarkers in patients with type 2 asthma at baseline (blood eosinophils ≥150 cells/μL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] ≥25 ppb), and subgroups defined by baseline blood eosinophils or FeNO. Results: Of patients with type 2 asthma (n = 1666), 891 (53.5%) were receiving high‐dose ICS at PSBL. In this subgroup, unadjusted exacerbation rates for dupilumab versus placebo were 0.517 versus 1.883 (phase 2b) and 0.571 versus 1.300 (QUEST) over the parent study (52 weeks) and remained low throughout TRAVERSE (0.313–0.494). Improvements in pre‐BD FEV1 were sustained throughout TRAVERSE. Similar clinical efficacy was observed among patients receiving medium‐dose ICS at PSBL and biomarker subgroups. Conclusions: Dupilumab showed sustained efficacy for up to 3 years in patients with uncontrolled, moderate‐to‐severe type 2 asthma on high‐ or medium‐dose ICS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity is known to diminish lung volumes and worsen asthma. However, mechanistic understanding is lacking, especially as concerns small‐airway responsiveness. The objective of this study was therefore to compare small‐airway responsiveness, as represented by the change in expiratory:inspiratory mean lung density ratios (MLDe/i, as determined by computed tomography [CT]) throughout methacholine testing in obese versus non‐obese women with asthma. Methods: Thoracic CT was performed during methacholine bronchoconstriction challenges to produce standardized response curves (SRC: response parameter versus ln[1 + % PD20], where PD20 is the cumulative methacholine dose) for 31 asthma patients (n = 18 non‐obese and n = 13 obese patients). Mixed models evaluated obesity effects and interactions on SRCs while adjusting for age and bronchial morphology. Small airway responsiveness as represented by SRC slope was calculated for each third of the MLDe/i response and compared between groups. Results: Obesity‐associated effects observed during experimental bronchoconstriction included: (i) a significant baseline effect for forced expiratory volume in 1 second with lower values for the obese (73.11 ± 13.44) versus non‐obese (82.19 ± 8.78; p = 0.002) groups prior to methacholine testing and (ii) significantly higher responsiveness in small airways as estimated via differences in MLDe/i slopes (group×ln(1 + % PD20 interaction; p = 0.023). The latter were pinpointed to higher slopes in the obese group at the beginning 2/3 of SRCs (p = 0.004 and p = 0.021). Significant obesity effects (p = 0.035 and p = 0.008) indicating lower forced vital capacity and greater % change in MLDe/I (respectively) throughout methacholine testing, were also observed. Conclusion: In addition to baseline differences, small‐airway responsiveness (as represented by the change in MLDe/i) during methacholine challenge is greater in obese women with asthma as compared to the non‐obese. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The GINA Science Committee consists of highly skilled and experienced asthma experts, who continually review and synthesize scientific evidence to provide guidance on asthma prevention, diagnosis and management. Global initiative for asthma: 30 years of promoting evidence-based asthma care The GINA Board of Directors has a global geographic representation and draws its membership from leaders with an outstanding demonstrated commitment to asthma research, asthma clinical management, public health and patient advocacy. Asthma is a serious global health problem affecting all age groups. [Extracted from the article]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Asthma exacerbations are inflammatory events that rarely result in full hospitalization following an ER visit. Unfortunately, certain patients require prolonged support, including occasional external lung support through ECMO or ECCOR (with subsequent further exposure to other life‐threatening issues), and some die. In parallel, biologics are revolutionizing severe asthma management, mostly in T2 high patients. Methods: We extensively reviewed the current unmet needs surrounding ICU‐admitted asthma exacerbations, with a focus on currently available drugs and the underlying biological processes involved. We explored whether currently available T2‐targeting drugs can reasonably be seen as potential players not only for relapse prevention but also as candidate drugs for a faster resolution of such episodes. The patient's perspective was also sought. Results: About 30% of asthma exacerbations admitted to the ICU do not resolve within five days. Persistent severe airway obstruction despite massive doses of corticosteroids and maximal pharmacologically induced bronchodilation is the main cause of treatment failure. Previous ICU admission is the main risk factor for such episodes and may eventually be considered as a T2 surrogate marker. Fatal asthma cases are hallmarked by poorly steroid‐sensitive T2‐inflammation associated with severe mucus plugging. New, fast‐acting T2‐targeting biologics (already used for preventing asthma exacerbations) have the potential to circumvent steroid sensitivity pathways and decrease mucus plugging. This unmet need was confirmed by patients who reported highly negative, traumatizing experiences. Conclusions: There is room for improvement in the management of ICU‐admitted severe asthma episodes. Clinical trials assessing how biologics might improve ICU outcomes are direly needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 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 it 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 ≥150/300 cells/µL and/or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] ≥25 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 vs 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 ≥ 300 eosinophils/µL in phase 2b study (24%/50% (P =.52/0.15). 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 ≥ 25 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusions 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.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.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.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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]