Search

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, with multiple underlying inflammatory pathways and structural airway abnormalities that impact disease persistence and severity. Recent progress has been made in developing targeted asthma therapeutics, especially for subjects with eosinophilic asthma. However, there is an unmet need for new approaches to treat patients with severe and exacerbation-prone asthma, who contribute disproportionately to disease burden. Extensive deep phenotyping has revealed the heterogeneous nature of severe asthma and identified distinct disease subtypes. Acurrent challenge in the field is to translate new and emerging knowledge about different pathobiologic mechanisms in asthma into patient-specific therapies, with the ultimate goal of modifying the natural history of disease. Here, we describe the Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone Asthma (PrecISE) Network, a groundbreaking collaborative effort of asthma researchers and biostatisticians from around the United States. The PrecISE Network was designed to conduct phase II/proof-of-concept clinical trials of precision interventions in the population with severe asthma, and is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Using an innovative adaptive platform trial design, the PrecISE Network will evaluate up to 6 interventions simultaneously in biomarker-defined subgroups of subjects. We review the development and organizational structure of the PrecISE Network, and choice of interventions being studied. We hope that the PrecISE Network will enhance our understanding of asthma subtypes and accelerate the development of therapeutics for severe asthma.

BACKGROUND Pharmacogenetic studies in asthma cohorts, primarily made up of White people of European descent, have identified loci associated with response to inhaled beta agonists and corticosteroids (ICSs). Differences exist in how individuals from different ancestral backgrounds respond to long-acting beta agonist (LABA) and ICSs. Therefore, we sought to understand the pharmacogenetic mechanisms regulating therapeutic responsiveness in individuals of African descent. METHODS We did ancestry-based pharmacogenetic studies of children (aged 5-11 years) and adolescents and adults (aged 12-69 years) from the Best African Response to Drug (BARD) trials, in which participants with asthma uncontrolled with low-dose ICS (fluticasone propionate 50 μg in children, 100 μg in adolescents and adults) received different step-up combination therapies. The hierarchal composite outcome of pairwise superior responsiveness in BARD was based on asthma exacerbations, a 31-day difference in annualised asthma-control days, or a 5% difference in percentage predicted FEV1. We did whole-genome admixture mapping of 15 159 ancestral segments within 312 independent regions, stratified by the two age groups. The two co-primary outcome comparisons were the step up from low-dose ICS to the quintuple dose of ICS (5 × ICS: 250 μg twice daily in children and 500 μg twice daily in adolescents and adults) versus double dose (2-2·5 × ICS: 100 μg twice daily in children, 250 μg twice daily in adolescents and adults), and 5 × ICS versus 100 μg fluticasone plus a LABA (salmeterol 50 μg twice daily). We used a genome-wide significance threshold of p

Rationale: It is unclear why select patients with moderate-to-severe asthma continue to lose lung function despite therapy. We hypothesized that participants with the smallest responses to parenteral corticosteroids have the greatest risk of undergoing a severe decline in lung function.Objectives: To evaluate corticosteroid-response phenotypes as longitudinal predictors of lung decline.Methods: Adults within the NHLBI SARP III (Severe Asthma Research Program III) who had undergone a course of intramuscular triamcinolone at baseline and at ≥2 annual follow-up visits were evaluated. Longitudinal slopes were calculated for each participant's post-bronchodilator FEV1% predicted. Categories of participant FEV1 slope were defined: severe decline, >2% loss/yr; mild decline, >0.5-2.0% loss/yr; no change, 0.5% loss/yr to

Background The effect of age on asthma severity is poorly understood. Objectives The objective of this study was to compare the baseline features of severe and nonsevere asthma in the Severe Asthma Research Program (SARP) III cohort, and examine in cross section the effects of age on those features. Methods SARP III is a National Institutes of Health/National Heart Lung Blood Institute multisite 3-year cohort study conducted to investigate mechanisms of severe asthma. The sample included 188 children (111 severe, 77 nonsevere) and 526 adults (313 severe, 213 nonsevere) characterized for demographic features, symptoms, health care utilization, lung function, and inflammatory markers compared by age and severity. Results Compared with children with nonsevere asthma, children with severe asthma had more symptoms and more historical exacerbations, but no difference in body weight, post-bronchodilator lung function, or inflammatory markers. After childhood, and increasing with age, the cohort had a higher proportion of women, less allergen sensitization, and overall fewer blood eosinophils. Enrollment of participants with severe asthma was highest in middle-aged adults, who were older, more obese, with greater airflow limitation and higher blood eosinophils, but less allergen sensitization than adults with nonsevere asthma. Conclusions The phenotypic features of asthma differ by severity and with advancing age. With advancing age, patients with severe asthma are more obese, have greater airflow limitation, less allergen sensitization, and variable type 2 inflammation. Novel mechanisms besides type 2 inflammatory pathways may inform the severe asthma phenotype with advancing age.

RationalePhenotypic distinctions between severe asthma (SA) and nonsevere asthma (NONSA) may be confounded by differential adherence or incorrect use of corticosteroids.ObjectivesTo determine if there are persistent phenotypic distinctions between SA (as defined by 2014 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines) and NONSA after intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide (TA), and to identify predictors of a corticosteroid response in these populations.MethodsA total of 526 adults age 18 years and older (315 SA) and 188 children age 6 to less than 18 years (107 SA) in the NHLBI Severe Asthma Research Program III were characterized before and 3 weeks after TA. The primary outcome for corticosteroid response was defined as greater than or equal to 10-point improvement in percent predicted FEV1.Measurements and main resultsAdult asthma groups exhibited a small but significant mean FEV1% predicted improvement after TA (SA group mean difference, 3.4%; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-4.7%; P = 0.001), whereas children did not. Adult SA continued to manifest lower FEV1 and worse asthma control as compared with NONSA after TA. In children, after TA only prebronchodilator FEV1 distinguished SA from NONSA. A total of 21% of adults with SA and 20% of children with SA achieved greater than or equal to 10% improvement after TA. Baseline bronchodilator response and fractional exhaled nitric oxide had good sensitivity and specificity for predicting response in all groups except children with NONSA.ConclusionsOne in five patients with SA exhibit greater than or equal to 10% improvement in FEV1 with parenteral corticosteroid. Those likely to respond had greater bronchodilator responsiveness and fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels. In adults, differences in airflow obstruction and symptoms between SA and NONSA persist after parenteral corticosteroids, suggesting a component of corticosteroid nonresponsive pathobiology in adults with SA that may differ in children. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01606826).

BackgroundStudies have suggested an association between frequent acetaminophen use and asthma-related complications among children, leading some physicians to recommend that acetaminophen be avoided in children with asthma; however, appropriately designed trials evaluating this association in children are lacking.MethodsIn a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial, we enrolled 300 children (age range, 12 to 59 months) with mild persistent asthma and assigned them to receive either acetaminophen or ibuprofen when needed for the alleviation of fever or pain over the course of 48 weeks. The primary outcome was the number of asthma exacerbations that led to treatment with systemic glucocorticoids. Children in both groups received standardized asthma-controller therapies that were used in a simultaneous, factorially linked trial.ResultsParticipants received a median of 5.5 doses (interquartile range, 1.0 to 15.0) of trial medication; there was no significant between-group difference in the median number of doses received (P=0.47). The number of asthma exacerbations did not differ significantly between the two groups, with a mean of 0.81 per participant with acetaminophen and 0.87 per participant with ibuprofen over 46 weeks of follow-up (relative rate of asthma exacerbations in the acetaminophen group vs. the ibuprofen group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.28; P=0.67). In the acetaminophen group, 49% of participants had at least one asthma exacerbation and 21% had at least two, as compared with 47% and 24%, respectively, in the ibuprofen group. Similarly, no significant differences were detected between acetaminophen and ibuprofen with respect to the percentage of asthma-control days (85.8% and 86.8%, respectively; P=0.50), use of an albuterol rescue inhaler (2.8 and 3.0 inhalations per week, respectively; P=0.69), unscheduled health care utilization for asthma (0.75 and 0.76 episodes per participant, respectively; P=0.94), or adverse events.ConclusionsAmong young children with mild persistent asthma, as-needed use of acetaminophen was not shown to be associated with a higher incidence of asthma exacerbations or worse asthma control than was as-needed use of ibuprofen. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; AVICA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01606319.).