Search

Background: Asthma remission has emerged as a potential treatment goal. This study evaluated the effectiveness of two biologics (mepolizumab/omalizumab) in achieving asthma remission., Methods: This observational study included 453 severe asthma patients (41% male; mean age ± SD 55.7 ± 14.7 years) from two real-world drug registries: the Australian Mepolizumab Registry and the Australian Xolair Registry. The composite outcome clinical remission was defined as zero exacerbations and zero oral corticosteroids during the previous 6 months assessed at 12 months and 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) ≤1 at 12 months. We also assessed clinical remission plus optimization (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80%) or stabilization (post-bronchodilator FEV1 not greater than 5% decline from baseline) of lung function at 12 months. Sensitivity analyses explored various cut-offs of ACQ-5/FEV1 scores. The predictors of clinical remission were identified., Results: 29.3% (73/249) of AMR and 22.8% (37/162) of AXR cohort met the criteria for clinical remission. When lung function criteria were added, the remission rates were reduced to 25.2% and 19.1%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses identified that the remission rate ranged between 18.1% and 34.9% in the AMR cohort and 10.6% and 27.2% in the AXR cohort. Better lung function, lower body mass index, mild disease and absence of comorbidities such as obesity, depression and osteoporosis predicted the odds of achieving clinical remission., Conclusion: Biologic treatment with mepolizumab or omalizumab for severe asthma-induced asthma remission in a subgroup of patients. Remission on treatment may be an achievable treatment target and future studies should consider remission as an outcome measure., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Comorbidities in severe asthma are common and contribute to disease burden. The severe asthma phenotype and treatment response can be impacted by comorbid conditions. Real-world data on the use of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) in the presence of comorbidities are needed to inform clinical practice., Objective: To investigate the impact of comorbid conditions on baseline phenotype in patients with SEA and assess the mepolizumab treatment effect by comorbidity status in SEA., Methods: Patients enrolled in the Australian Mepolizumab Registry (n = 309) were classified into subgroups defined by the presence or absence of comorbidities, including nasal polyps, aspirin-exacerbated airway disease, asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap (ACO), fungal sensitization, and obesity. Patient baseline characteristics were compared, and the impacts of comorbidity on phenotype, identified by differences in patient age and/or baseline biomarker levels and/or asthma severity, were assessed. The mepolizumab treatment effects on clinical and biological outcomes at 12 months were assessed., Results: Across comorbidity subgroups, mepolizumab reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (range: 47%-77%), maintenance oral corticosteroid use (dose reduction: 4.2-13.3 mg/d), and improved symptom control (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score: 1.9-2.4 point reduction) and lung function (mean: 3.4-9.3 post-bronchodilator percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second). Peripheral blood eosinophils were reduced (mean: 480-780 cells/μL). Comorbidities (nasal polyps, obesity, ACO, and fungal sensitization) modified the baseline phenotype., Conclusions: Mepolizumab treatment is associated with comparable clinical improvements in patients with SEA and comorbidities. Mepolizumab effectively minimizes the disease impact and corticosteroid burden in patients with SEA., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Oral corticosteroids (OCS) carry serious health risks. Innovative treatment options are required to reduce excessive exposure and promote OCS stewardship., Objectives: This study evaluated the trajectories of OCS exposure (prednisolone-equivalent) in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma before and after starting mepolizumab and the predictors of becoming OCS free after 6 months of mepolizumab therapy., Methods: This real-world observational study included 309 patients from the Australian Mepolizumab Registry who were followed up for 1 year (n = 225)., Results: Patients had a median age of 60 (interquartile range: 50, 68) years, and 58% were female. At baseline, 48% used maintenance OCS, 96% had ≥1 OCS burst, and 68% had received ≥1 g of OCS in the previous year. After commencing mepolizumab, only 55% of those initially on maintenance OCS remained on this treatment by 12 months. Maintenance OCS dose reduced from median 10 (5.0, 12.5) mg/day at baseline to 2 (0, 7.0) mg/day at 12 months (P < .001). Likewise, proportions of patients receiving OCS bursts in the previous year reduced from 96% at baseline to 50% at 12 months (P < .001). Overall, 137 (48%) patients required OCS (maintenance/burst) after 6 months' mepolizumab therapy. Becoming OCS free was predicted by a lower body mass index (odds ratio: 0.925; 95% confidence interval: 0.872-0.981), late-onset asthma (1.027; 1.006-1.048), a lower Asthma Control Test score (1.111; 0.011-1.220), and not receiving maintenance OCS therapy at baseline (0.095; 0.040-0.227)., Conclusion: Mepolizumab led to a significant and sustained reduction in OCS dependence in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. This study supports the OCS-sparing effect of mepolizumab and highlights the pivotal role of mepolizumab in OCS stewardship initiatives., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Severe asthma is a high-burden disease. Real-world data on mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma is needed to assess whether the data from randomised controlled trials are applicable in a broader population.The Australian Mepolizumab Registry (AMR) was established with an aim to assess the use, effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma in Australia.Patients (n=309) with severe eosinophilic asthma (median age 60 years, 58% female) commenced mepolizumab. They had poor symptom control (median Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score of 3.4), frequent exacerbations (median three courses of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in the previous 12 months), and 47% required daily OCS. Median baseline peripheral blood eosinophil level was 590 cells·µL -1 Comorbidities were common: allergic rhinitis 63%, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease 52%, obesity 46%, nasal polyps 34%.Mepolizumab treatment reduced exacerbations requiring OCS compared with the previous year (annualised rate ratio 0.34 (95% CI 0.29-0.41); p<0.001) and hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.46 (95% CI 0.33-0.63); p<0.001). Treatment improved symptom control (median ACQ-5 reduced by 2.0 at 6 months), quality of life and lung function. Higher blood eosinophil levels (p=0.003) and later age of asthma onset (p=0.028) predicted a better ACQ-5 response to mepolizumab, whilst being male (p=0.031) or having body mass index ≥30 (p=0.043) predicted a lesser response. Super-responders (upper 25% of ACQ-5 responders, n=61, 24%) had a higher T2 disease burden and fewer comorbidities at baseline.Mepolizumab therapy effectively reduces the significant and long-standing disease burden faced by patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in a real-world setting., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: E.S. Harvey reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline that were paid to her employer, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: D. Langton has received fees from GlaxoSmithKline for participation in severe asthma advisory boards. Conflict of interest: C. Katelaris reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees for advisory board work and lectures from Sanofi, Novartis and CSL, personal fees from Seqirus and Takeda, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Stevens has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C.S. Farah reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Genzyme, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. Gillman reports personal fees for advisory board work and education from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Harrington reports personal fees for education and advisory board work from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees for education from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Hew reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, personal fees from Sanofi, Teva and Seqirus, outside the submitted work; all paid to his institutional employer Alfred Health. Conflict of interest: V. Kritikos has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: N. Radhakrishna reports grants from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Bardin reports per patient trial participation fees from Monash Lung and Sleep, during the conduct of the study; personal fees for advisory board work from Philip Bardin, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Peters reports personal fees for advisory board work from Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P.N. Reynolds reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: J.W. Upham reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Baraket has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Bowler reports personal fees for advisory board work from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Bowden reports personal fees for advisory board work from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Chien reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L.P. Chung has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Grainge reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Pharmaceuticals and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Jenkins reports personal fees for advisory board work, conducting meetings and developing educational content, and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees for advisory board work from Boehringer Ingleheim, grants and personal fees for advisory board work from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees for advisory board work, facilitating symposia and developing educational content from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: G.P. Katsoulotos has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Lee reports personal fees for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca, personal fees for consultancy from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: V.M. McDonald reports grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Menarini, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: H.K. Reddel reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees for data monitoring committee work, advisory board work, providing independent medical education and consultancy from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees for data monitoring committee work, advisory board work, providing independent medical education and consultancy and non-financial support (study medication) from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees for data monitoring committee work from Merck, grants and personal fees for data monitoring committee work, advisory board work and providing independent medical education from Novartis, personal fees for providing independent medical education from Teva and Mundipharma, personal fees for advisory board work and providing independent medical education from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees for advisory board work from Sanofi Genzyme, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Rimmer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P.A.B. Wark has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P.G. Gibson reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees for lectures from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, grants from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2020.)