Annual Exacerbation Rate Research Articles

Comparing bronchial thermoplasty with biologicals for severe asthma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

BackgroundBronchial thermoplasty (BT) has shown favorable safety and efficacy in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but has not been directly compared to biological therapies. MethodsElectronic literature searches were performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, to retrieve RCTs of BT or FDA-approved biologicals against controls in patients with severe asthma. Six outcomes were analyzed: Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), the number of patients experiencing ≥1 asthma exacerbation, annualized exacerbation rate ratio (AERR), oral corticosteroid dose reduction (OCDR), and morning peak expiratory flow rate (amPEF). Random-effects, Frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed, and therapies were ranked using P-scores. ResultsTwenty-nine RCTs (15,547 patients) were included. Fewer patients treated with BT experienced ≥1 asthma exacerbation (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.45–0.98) compared to control. AERR of BT versus control was non-significant, but significant improvements in ACQ score (mean difference [MD] −0.41, 95%CI -0.63 to −0.20), AQLQ score (MD = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.30–0.77), amPEF and OCDR were found. No significant differences between BT and biologics were seen across indirect comparisons of all studies. ConclusionsDespite the lack of head-to-head comparative trials, this NMA suggests that BT is non-inferior to biologicals in terms of quality-of-life scores, and represents a promising alternative for patients with severe asthma.

Long-term effectiveness of benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma patients treated for 96-weeks: data from the ANANKE study

BackgroundThe efficacy of benralizumab has been broadly demonstrated in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), but only few real-life studies evaluated its long-term effects. Here we present novel data from the ANANKE study in which a large cohort of SEA patients was treated for up to 96 weeks.MethodsANANKE (NCT04272463) is an observational retrospective Italian study investigating the key characteristics of SEA patients (collected during the 12 months prior to benralizumab initiation) and the clinical outcomes during benralizumab treatment (annual exacerbation rate [AER], lung function, asthma control, OCS use, healthcare resource utilization). A post hoc analysis was also conducted in groups of patients based on history of previous biologic therapy (bio-experienced versus naïve patients). Analyses were descriptive only.ResultsBefore benralizumab initiation, evaluable SEA patients (N = 162, 61.1% females, mean age 56.0 ± 12.7) showed a median blood eosinophil count (BEC) of 600 cells/mm3 (IQR: 430–890). Patients experienced frequent exacerbations (annualized exacerbation rate [AER]: 4.10, severe AER: 0.98), with impaired lung function and poor asthma control (median ACT score: 14) despite 25.3% reported oral corticosteroid (OCS) use. Nasal polyposis was present in 53.1% patients; 47.5% patients were atopic. After 96 weeks since the start of benralizumab, nearly 90% patients were still on treatment; benralizumab dramatically decreased exacerbations (AER: − 94.9%; severe AER: − 96.9%), improved respiratory parameters (median increase in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume [pre-BD FEV1]: + 400 mL) and asthma control (median ACT score: 23) while eliminating OCS in 60% patients. Importantly, benralizumab effects were either maintained or progressively improved over time, accompanied by a nearly complete depletion of BEC. Benralizumab reduced AER both in naïve (any AER: − 95.9%; severe AER: − 97.5%) and bio-experienced patients (any AER: − 92.4%; severe AER: − 94.0%).ConclusionsProfound and sustained improvements in all asthma outcomes were observed with benralizumab. The correct identification of patients’ eosinophilic-driven asthma phenotype was essential to ensure the achievement of such remarkable results.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04272463.

Real-world impact of dupilumab on asthma disease burden in Japan: The CROSSROAD study

BackgroundDupilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)-4Ra antibody blocks the shared receptor component of IL-4 and IL-13, drivers of type 2 inflammation. Dupilumab is approved for severe/refractory asthma inadequately controlled by existing therapies, but knowledge of its effect on real-world disease burden is lacking. This study investigates real-world effects of dupilumab on asthma exacerbation risk and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use in Japanese individuals with asthma. MethodsThis retrospective, cohort study used a Japanese insurance claims database to identify patients who started dupilumab between 26 March 2019–31 May 2020. Patients were followed for ±365 days from dupilumab initiation. The study primarily assessed the annual incidence rate of severe asthma exacerbations occurring simultaneously with hospitalizations or OCS bursts. Secondary and exploratory endpoints assessed OCS dosage and duration, and healthcare resource utilization (HRU), respectively. ResultsAt dupilumab initiation (N = 215), mean age was 57.2 years, 41.9% of patients were aged ≥65 years, and 59.5% were female. Dupilumab significantly reduced the annual incidence of severe asthma exacerbations from 1.29 to 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.44–0.76) per patient per year. Mean OCS dosage decreased from 10.4 to 7.2 mg/day in chronic OCS users; median frequency of OCS bursts decreased from 3 to 0. Both unscheduled outpatient visits (35.8% vs 29.8%) and hospitalizations (21.9% vs 12.1%) decreased. Mean (standard deviation) duration of hospitalization also decreased from 6.7 (27.6) to 2.2 (8.1) days. ConclusionsJapanese patients with asthma who received dupilumab had reduced incidence rates of severe asthma exacerbations, OCS use, and HRU over 12 months.

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

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. 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. 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). 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.

Joint longitudinal model-based meta-analysis of FEV1 and exacerbation rate in randomized COPD trials.

Model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) is an approach that integrates relevant summary level data from heterogeneously designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study not only evaluated the predictability of a published MBMA for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and its link to annual exacerbation rate in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but also included data from new RCTs. A comparative effectiveness analysis across all drugs was also performed. Aggregated level data were collected from RCTs published between July 2013 and November 2020 (n = 132 references comprising 156 studies) and combined with data used in the legacy MBMA (published RCTs up to July 2013 - n = 142). The augmented data (n = 298) were used to evaluate the predictive performance of the published MBMA using goodness-of-fit plots for assessment. Furthermore, the model was extended including drugs that were not available before July 2013, estimating a new set of parameters. The legacy MBMA model predicted the post-2013 FEV1 data well, and new estimated parameters were similar to those of drugs in the same class. However, the exacerbation model overpredicted the post-2013 mean annual exacerbation rate data. Inclusion of year when the study started on the pre-treatment placebo rate improved the model predictive performance perhaps explaining potential improvements in the disease management over time. The addition of new data to the legacy COPD MBMA enabled a more robust model with increased predictability performance for both endpoints FEV1 and mean annual exacerbation rate.

Anti-epithelial-derived cytokines for severe asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Therapies directed against epithelial-derived cytokines, often referred to as alarmins, have been studied in large randomized trials, and reports suggest possible benefit for non-type 2 as well as type 2 severe asthma. We performed a systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline In-Process, and Web of Science databases from inception to March 2022. We performed a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials addressing antialarmin therapy in severe asthma. Results use relative risk (RR) values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we report mean difference (MD) values and 95% CIs. We define high eosinophils as ≥300 cells/μL and low eosinophils as <300 cells/μL. We used Cochrane-endorsed RoB 2.0 software to assess the risk of bias of trials, and we used the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (aka GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of the evidence. We identified 12 randomized trials including 2391 patients. Antialarmins probably reduce annualized exacerbation rates in patients with high eosinophils (RR 0.33 [95% CI 0.28 to 0.38]; moderate certainty). Antialarmins may reduce this rate in patients with low eosinophils (RR 0.59 [95% CI 0.38 to 0.90]; low certainty). Antialarmins improve FEV1 in patients with high eosinophils (MD 218.5 mL [95% CI 160.2 to 276.7]; high certainty). Antialarmin therapy probably does not improve FEV1 in patients with low eosinophils (MD 68.8 mL [95% CI 22.4 to 115.2]; moderate certainty). Antialarmins reduce blood eosinophils, total IgE, and fractional excretion of nitric oxide across studied subjects. Antialarmins are effective at improving lung function and probably reduce exacerbations in patients with severe asthma and blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL. The effect on patients with lower eosinophils is less certain.

Association of pectoralis muscle area on computed tomography with airflow limitation severity and respiratory outcomes in COPD: A population-based prospective cohort study

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) of severe or very severe airflow limitation have a reduced pectoralis muscle area (PMA), which is associated with mortality. However, whether patients with COPD of mild or moderate airflow limitation also have a reduced PMA remains unclear. Additionally, limited evidence is available regarding the associations between PMA and respiratory symptoms, lung function, computed tomography (CT) imaging, lung function decline, and exacerbations. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the presence of PMA reduction in COPD and to clarify its associations with the referred variables. MethodsThis study was based on the subjects enrolled from July 2019 to December 2020 in the Early Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (ECOPD) study. Data including questionnaire, lung function, and CT imaging were collected. The PMA was quantified on full-inspiratory CT at the aortic arch level using predefined -50 and 90 Hounsfield unit attenuation ranges. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to assess the association between the PMA and airflow limitation severity, respiratory symptoms, lung function, emphysema, air trapping, and the annual decline in lung function. Cox proportional hazards analysis and Poisson regression analysis were used to evaluate the PMA and exacerbations after adjustment. ResultsWe included 1352 subjects at baseline (667 with normal spirometry, 685 with spirometry-defined COPD). The PMA was monotonically lower with progressive airflow limitation severity of COPD after adjusting for confounders (vs. normal spirometry; Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] 1: β=-1.27, P=0.028; GOLD 2: β=-2.29, P<0.001; GOLD 3: β=-4.88, P<0.001; GOLD 4: β=-6.47, P=0.014). The PMA was negatively associated with the modified British Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (β=-0.005, P=0.026), COPD Assessment Test score (β=-0.06, P=0.001), emphysema (β=-0.07, P<0.001), and air trapping (β=-0.24, P<0.001) after adjustment. The PMA was positively associated with lung function (all P<0.05). Similar associations were discovered for the pectoralis major muscle area and pectoralis minor muscle area. After the 1-year follow-up, the PMA was associated with the annual decline in the post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent of predicted value (β=0.022, P=0.002) but not with the annual rate of exacerbations or the time to first exacerbation. ConclusionPatients with mild or moderate airflow limitation exhibit a reduced PMA. The PMA is associated with airflow limitation severity, respiratory symptoms, lung function, emphysema, and air trapping, suggesting that PMA measurement can assist with COPD assessment.

Dupilumab long-term efficacy in patients with non–OCS–dependent asthma with and without evidence of allergic asthma

Objective The open-label extension TRAVERSE study (NCT02134028) assessed dupilumab long-term safety and efficacy in patients who completed Phase 2/3 dupilumab asthma studies. This post hoc analysis evaluated long-term efficacy in type 2 patients with and without evidence of allergic asthma who enrolled in TRAVERSE from Phase 3 QUEST (NCT02414854) and Phase 2b (NCT01854047) studies. Non–type 2 patients with evidence of allergic asthma were also assessed. Methods Unadjusted annualized exacerbation rates during parent study and TRAVERSE treatment period, and changes from parent study baseline in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and in 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) scores were assessed in patients from QUEST and Phase 2b; change from parent study baseline in total IgE level was assessed in patients enrolled from Phase 2b. Results 2062 patients from Phase 2b and QUEST enrolled in TRAVERSE. Of these, 969 were type 2 with evidence of allergic asthma; 710 were type 2 without evidence of allergic asthma; and 194 were non–type 2 with evidence of allergic asthma at parent study baseline. In these populations, reductions in exacerbation rates observed during parent studies were sustained during TRAVERSE. Type 2 patients who switched from placebo arm to dupilumab in TRAVERSE experienced similar reductions in severe exacerbation rates, and improvements in lung function and asthma control to those patients who already received dupilumab during the parent study. Conclusion Dupilumab efficacy was sustained for up to 3 years in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe type 2 inflammatory asthma, with or without evidence of allergic asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02134028

Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol Use Trends and Characteristics in Patients With Obstructive Airway Disease: A Real-World Study of 10,374 Patients From India.

Introduction Obstructive Airway Diseases (OADs) are the leading cause of death among chronic respiratory diseases worldwide, and novel therapies are direly needed. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/Vi) (100/25 µg) is the first once-daily ICS/uLABA marketed in India for COPD since 2021. Considering its limited real-world experience in OAD patients in Indian clinical settings, a large drug utilization study (DUS) was planned. Methodology We conducted a cross-sectional, observational DUS at 1900 outpatient clinics in India from October 2021 to March 2022. Prescription data and medical history of patients who were prescribed the FF/Vi combination werecollected. Results It was observed that FF/Vi was prescribed in an almost equal number of patients with COPD (44.2%) and asthma (42.9%). The majority of the patients (74%) were switched from previous ICS/LABA to this ICS/uLABA, while 26% of patients were treatment naïve.The average CAT score was 19.5±7.8 (43.2% GOLD Group C and 32.2% GOLD Group B) in COPD patients, while the average ACQ-5 score was 2.6±1.3 (33.1% GINA Step 3, 29.5% GINA Step 2) in asthmatic patients. Most of the patients (63.9%) had raised biomarkers (Blood eosinophil count >300 cells/μl). Prior history of exacerbation was present in 65% of patients with annual exacerbation rates of 1.2 in COPD, 1.1 in asthma, and 1.2 in asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). Leukotriene inhibitors (42%) and LAMAs (30.8%) were common add-on medications. Conclusion We observed a trend towards a shift to once-daily ICS/uLABA (FF/Vi) by physicians, especially in symptomatic and exacerbating OAD patients with underlying comorbidities.

Long-term safety and efficacy of tezepelumab in people with severe, uncontrolled asthma (DESTINATION): a randomised, placebo-controlled extension study

Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin. The drug has been tested previously in the phase 3 NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279) and SOURCE (NCT03406078) studies, and was subsequently approved as a treatment for severe asthma. This extension study recruited from NAVIGATOR and SOURCE and aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of tezepelumab in individuals with severe, uncontrolled asthma. DESTINATION was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, long-term extension study. The study was done across 182 sites (including hospitals, clinics, medical centres, clinical trial centres, and private practices) in 18 countries. Participants (aged 12-80 years) were required to have good treatment compliance in the parent study. Randomisation was stratified by the parent study and all participants were re-randomised. Those who were previously randomised to receive tezepelumab in either parent study continued treatment of subcutaneous tezepelumab (210 mg every 4 weeks); those who were previously randomised to receive placebo in either parent study were re-randomised 1:1 to receive either subcutaneous tezepelumab (210 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo (every 4 weeks) using a randomisation list prepared by a computerised system. Total treatment duration (including the parent studies) was 104 weeks for all groups. Participants, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were exposure-adjusted incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events and the secondary endpoint was the annualised asthma exacerbation rate; these were assessed from week 0 of the parent studies to week 104 of DESTINATION in all participants who were randomised and who received at least one dose of tezepelumab or placebo in either of the parent studies. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03706079, and is closed to new participants. Participants were recruited between Jan 7, 2019, and Oct 15, 2020. For individuals who initially received tezepelumab (n=528) in NAVIGATOR, incidence of adverse events over 104 weeks was 49·62 (95% CI 45·16 to 54·39) per 100 patient-years, compared with 62·66 (56·93 to 68·81) for those receiving placebo (n=531; difference -13·04, 95% CI -17·83 to -8·18). For serious adverse events, incidence was 7·85 (6·14 to 9·89) per 100 patient-years for individuals who initially received tezepelumab and 12·45 (9·97 to 15·35) for those who received placebo (difference -4·59, -7·69 to -1·65). In SOURCE, incidence of adverse events was 47·15 (36·06 to 60·56) per 100 patient-years for those who initially received tezepelumab (n=74) and 69·97 (54·54 to 88·40) for those who received placebo (n=76; difference -22·82, -34·77 to -10·01). For serious adverse events, incidence was 13·14 (7·65 to 21·04) per 100 patient-years for those who initially received tezepelumab and 17·99 (10·66 to 28·44) for those who received placebo (difference -4·85, -14·88 to 4·53). Tezepelumab reduced the annualised asthma exacerbation rate over 104 weeks compared with placebo. In participants initially from NAVIGATOR, the annualised asthma exacerbation rate ratio over 104 weeks was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35 to 0·51); in those initially from SOURCE, the ratio over 104 weeks was 0·61 (0·38 to 0·96). Tezepelumab treatment was well tolerated for up to 2 years and resulted in sustained, clinically meaningful reductions in asthma exacerbations in individuals with severe, uncontrolled asthma. These findings are consistent with previous randomised, placebo-controlled studies and show the long-term safety and sustained efficacy of tezepelumab in individuals with severe, uncontrolled asthma. AstraZeneca and Amgen.

Validation of asthma management approach according to risk factors

Background Although studies show that most people successfully control their asthma, polls consistently show that this is not the case in real life. The present study aimed to validate assessment of asthma control using a risk stratification approach in comparison with global strategy for asthma management and prevention (GINA) guidelines with particular attention to high-risk group of asthmatic patients. Patients and methods This was a prospective interventional cohort trial that enrolled 30 patients with asthma in the outpatient department of Ain Shams University Hospital between January 2019 and January 2020. There were 10 female patients and 20 male patients, with a mean age of 51.43 ± 14.94 years. They were enrolled and randomly grouped 1: 1 into group A, which followed asthma risk stratification therapy (ARST), and group B, with the standard GINA approach, within 1-year follow-up period. Following visit 1 in a 2-week interval as a washout period, there were five consecutive visits on 3 months apart, and then visit 6 at the end of treatment at a 2-week interval. All patients were subjected to the Asthma Control Test Questionnaire for assessment of asthma control by GINA approach and to objective control assessments in ARST by Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8 for adherence assessment, pulmonary function test for evaluation of annual decline of forced expiratory volume in the first second, and the annual rate of exacerbations. Results The results obtained from visits 1 to 6 showed nonstatistically significant differences in forced expiratory volume in the first second (75 vs. 81.82 ml, P=0.820) and in adherence scale (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8) on visits 2–5 (40 vs. 17, P=0465), or the rate of exacerbation (two exacerbations in each group), with no statistically significant differences (0 vs. 13.3%, P=0.143) in group A and group B, respectively. On the contrary, the assessment of severity tools in ARST was based on the level of sustainability of the asthma stepwise categorization among the duration therapy. Using ARST for the aims of control and severity assessments on the studied group, in comparison with the GINA assessment approach, there were highly significant statistical differences in numbers of controlled patients as well as numbers of patients with mild and moderate asthma for severity assessments (t=13.263, P=0.001 vs. t=22.941, P=0.0001, respectively). It could be concluded that applying the GINA approach on studied group A revealed underestimation of control and probably overestimation of asthma severity, or better called asthma stability. Conclusion ARST is noninferior to the GINA approach in the norms of asthma control when objectivity was measured, whereas the levels of sustainability or stability among the duration therapy for assessment of asthma severity were statistically overestimated when measured by GINA. These measures could help most patients with asthma, and there should be a concerted action for their implementation in epidemiological research.

Allergology: what's new in 2022

The study of reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has marked a large part of the literature in the last two years, using the basophil activation test (BAT) as a potential diagnostic tool for reactions to Covid-19 vaccines. In allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, lirentelimab (a humanised monoclonal antibody against lectin 8), reduces patients' symptoms and atopic comorbidities. In severe asthma, tezepelumab (human monoclonal antibody) reduces the annual asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks. In terms of diet, the new EAACI guidelines recommend avoiding cow's milk supplementation in infants during the first three days of life to reduce the risk of cow's milk allergy.

Omalizumab in Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

An unmet clinical need exists in the management of treatment-refractory allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Omalizumab has shown promising effects in case series and cohort studies; however, evidence to support its routine clinical use is lacking. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in patients with ABPA. We conducted a systematic search across standard databases using specific key words until May 13, 2021. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness (exacerbations, oral corticosteroid [OCS] use, lung function, and patient-reported asthma control) and safety of pre- and post-omalizumab treatment. Subgroup analyses were performed for treatment duration and underlying disease. In total, 49 studies (n= 267) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 14 case series (n= 186) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Omalizumab treatment significantly reduced the annualized exacerbation rate compared with pretreatment (mean difference,-2.09 [95% CI,-3.07 to-1.11]; P < .01). There was a reduction in OCS use (risk difference, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.84]; P < .01), an increase in termination of OCS use (risk difference, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.24-0.82]; P < .01), and a reduction in OCS dose (milligrams per day) (mean difference,-14.62 [95% CI,-19.86 to-9.39]; P < .01) in ABPA patients receiving omalizumab. Omalizumab improved FEV1 % predicted by 11.9% (95% CI, 8.2-15.6; P < .01) and asthma control, and was well-tolerated. Omalizumab treatment reduced exacerbations and OCS use, improved lung function and asthma control in patients with ABPA, and was well-tolerated. The results highlight the potential role of omalizumab in the treatment of ABPA.

Cardiovascular predictors of mortality and exacerbations in patients with COPD

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), comorbidities and worse functional status predict worse outcomes, but how these predictors compare with regard to different outcomes is not well studied. We thus compared the role of cardiovascular comorbidities for mortality and exacerbations. Data from baseline and up to four follow-up visits of the COSYCONET cohort were used. Cox or Poisson regression was employed to determine the relationship of predictors to mortality or mean annual exacerbation rate, respectively. Predictors comprised major comorbidities (including cardiovascular disease), lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1], diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide [TLCO]) and their changes over time, baseline symptoms, exacerbations, physical activity, and cardiovascular medication. Overall, 1817 patients were included. Chronic coronary artery disease (p = 0.005), hypertension (p = 0.044) and the annual decline in TLCO (p = 0.001), but not FEV1 decline, were predictors of mortality. In contrast, the annual decline of FEV1 (p = 0.019) but not that of TLCO or cardiovascular comorbidities were linked to annual exacerbation rate. In conclusion, the presence of chronic coronary artery disease and hypertension were predictors of increased mortality in COPD, but not of increased exacerbation risk. This emphasizes the need for broad diagnostic workup in COPD, including the assessment of cardiovascular comorbidity.Clinical Trials: NCT01245933.

Real-world data on the efficacy and safety of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in adults living with cystic fibrosis homozygous for F508del and heterozygous for F508del and a residual function mutation

ABSTRACT Background To examine safety and efficacy of tezacaftor-ivacaftor (TEZ/IVA) in a real-life setting in adults living with cystic fibrosis. Methods A multicentre retrospective observational study, including adults living with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) eligible for TEZ/IVA, with assessments at baseline, 3 months (visit3mo) and 6 months (visit6mo) after start of treatment. Outcomes included change in FEV1, LCI, FeNO, CFQ-R, estimated number of annual acute exacerbations, BMI, dosage of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) and airway microbiology. We also assessed safety. Results Forty-eight adult pwCF (mean (±SD) age 33 (±12) years; mean FEV1 65 (±19) %P) were included. Three subgroups were identified: pwCF F/F CFTR modulator-naive (n = 28; 58%), pwCF F/F previously treated with lumacaftor-ivacaftor (n = 11; 23%) and pwCF F/RF (n = 9; 19%). Adverse events were described in 3 pwCF (6%) during the 6-month observation period (in one leading to treatment interruption). At visit3mo, FEV1 had improved in all subgroups. In the entire group, mean FEV1 had increased from 66 (±2.9) %P to 72 (±2.9) %P (p < 0.0001). Similarly, LCI improved by approximately one unit at visit3mo (p = 0.02). At visit6mo mean annual acute exacerbation rate decreased significantly (p = 0.02). Only in the CFQ-R social functioning domain score, a significant improvement was observed at visit6mo (p < 0.01). Conclusions We showed that TEZ/IVA is safe, well tolerated and effective in terms of improvement of lung function, ventilation inhomogeneity, health-related social functioning, and reduction of estimated annual acute exacerbation rate, in adult pwCF F/F and F/RF. Results in this real-life study reflect those observed in RCTs.

REDUCTIONS IN EXACERBATIONS OF SEVERE ASTHMA PATIENTS TREATED WITH BENRALIZUMAB – ZEPHYR 3

<h3>Introduction</h3> Eosinophilic asthma is the most common phenotype of severe asthma. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of benralizumab, which is approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, on asthma exacerbations. <h3>Methods</h3> Using claims and laboratory data from a large US health plan, this retrospective cohort study described the exacerbation rates of patients initiating benralizumab between 11/01/2017 and 07/31/2021. Patients=12 years old with an asthma diagnosis, =12 months of insurance enrollment pre- and post-initiation, =2 pre-initiation exacerbations, and=2 doses of benralizumab were included. <h3>Results</h3> 506 patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients were 69% female, had a mean (SD) age of 52 (14) years, and were seen primarily by allergists/immunologists (39%) and pulmonologists (34%). Of the 506 patients, 223 (44%) were persistent users (=6 doses) post-initiation; the mean (SD) number of doses was 5 (2.2). After initiating benralizumab, patients had a 62.5% reduction in the annual exacerbation rate (3.2 vs. 1.2, p<.001). Patients with pre-initiation blood eosinophil (bEOS) counts of <300 cells/µL showed similar reductions (53.1% [3.2 vs. 1.5], p <.001) as did patients with bEOS of=300 cells/µL (71.9% [3.2 vs. 0.9], p <.001). A similar decline in annual exacerbation rate was observed for bEOS <150 cells/µL (53.1% [3.2 vs. 1.5], p <.001 and bEOS=150 cells/µL (68.8% [3.2 vs. 1.0], p < .001). <h3>Conclusion</h3> Patients had significantly fewer asthma exacerbations overall and across blood eosinophil count thresholds after initiating benralizumab. These findings demonstrate that benralizumab is an effective add-on treatment option for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

Clinical Features and Efficacy of Benralizumab in Patients with Blood Eosinophil Count Between 300 and 450 Cells/mm3: A Post Hoc Analysis from the ANANKE Study.

Benralizumab effectively reduces severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) exacerbations in patients with a wide range of baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). Patients included in real-world studies are often characterized by high mean/median BEC, while patients with BEC close to 300 cells/mm3 are poorly represented. This post hoc analysis from the Italian study ANANKE aims to define the clinical features and corroborate the efficacy of benralizumab in real world in the BEC 300-450 cells/mm3 subset of patients. Post hoc analysis of the Italian, multicenter, observational, retrospective real-life study ANANKE (NCT04272463). Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected in the 12 months prior to benralizumab treatment and presented for a BEC 300-450 cells/mm3 subgroup of patients. Change over time of BEC, annualized exacerbation rate (AER), asthma control (ACT), lung function and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use at 16, 24 and 48 weeks after benralizumab introduction were collected. A total of 164 patients were analyzed, 34 of whom with a BEC of 300-450 cells/mm3. This subgroup was more likely to be female (64.7%), with lower rates of severe exacerbations at baseline when compared to the total population (0.69 vs 1.01). After 48 weeks of benralizumab treatment, the BEC 300-450 subset showed similar reductions in AER (-94.8% vs -92.2%) and OCS use (median dose reduction of 100% in both groups), as well as improvement in ACT score (median scores 22.5 vs 22) and lung function (pre-BD FEV1: +200 mL vs +300 mL) when compared to the total population. No discontinuations for safety reasons were registered. At baseline, apart from lower severe exacerbation rate, the BEC 300-450 cells/mm3 subset of patients is comparable to the total population prescribed with benralizumab. In this real-life study, benralizumab is as effective in BEC 300-450 patients as in the total population.

Characterization of Patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry with High Steroid Exposure Who Did or Did Not Initiate Biologic Therapy.

BackgroundMany severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics.MethodsBaseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons.ResultsBetween January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/µL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p<0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147).ConclusionAround one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.

Switching from one biologic to benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: An ANANKE study post hoc analysis.

BackgroundSevere asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease driven by eosinophilic inflammation in the majority of cases. Despite biologic therapy patients may still be sub-optimally controlled, and the choice of the best biologic is a matter of debate. Indeed, switching between biologics is common, but no official guidelines are available and real-world data are limited.Materials and methodsIn this post hoc analysis of the Italian, multi-center, observational, retrospective study, ANANKE. Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab were divided in two groups based on history of previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced [suboptimal response] vs naïve). Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected in the 12 months prior to benralizumab treatment. Change over time in blood eosinophils, annualized exacerbation rate (AER), asthma control (ACT), lung function and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use following benralizumab initiation were collected in the two groups.ResultsA total of 147 biologic-naïve and 58 biologic-experienced (34 omalizumab, 19 mepolizumab, and 5 omalizumab-mepolizumab) patients were enrolled. Biologic-experienced patients were more likely to be atopic and have a higher AER despite more frequent OCS use. Similar reductions in AER (>90% in both groups), OCS use (≥49% reduction in dosage and ≥41% able to eliminate OCS), ACT improvement (≥7 points gained in 48 weeks) and lung function (≥300 mL of FEV1 improvement in 48 weeks) were observed after benralizumab introduction within the two groups. There were no registered discontinuations of benralizumab for safety reasons.ConclusionIn this post hoc analysis, patients who were switched to benralizumab because of suboptimal control with a previous biologic therapy were more likely to be atopic and more often treated with omalizumab. Benralizumab is effective in both naïve patients and those previously treated with a biologic.

Effect of Recent Exacerbation History on the Efficacy of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Triple Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the FULFIL Trial.

BackgroundIn the FULFIL trial, once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) resulted in reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) dual therapy.MethodsFULFIL was a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. Patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD were randomized 1:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg or BUD/FOR 400/12 mcg. In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized by exacerbation history in the year prior to study entry (≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation [recent exacerbation] versus no recent exacerbation). Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations up to Week 24, annual rate of on-treatment severe exacerbations up to Week 24, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24, and change from baseline in health status as measured by St George’s respiratory questionnaire total score at Week 24.ResultsOf the 1810 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 1180 (65%) had one or more moderate/severe exacerbation in the year prior to entry, while 630 (35%) patients did not. FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.19 vs 0.29; rate ratio [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.64: [0.45, 0.91]; p=0.014) and numerically reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the no recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.29 vs 0.43; rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.67 [0.43, 1.04]; p=0.073). Severe exacerbation rates were numerically reduced with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR treatment across both subgroups. FF/UMEC/VI conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR, regardless of recent exacerbation history.ConclusionFF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of recent exacerbation history.