Search

Craig LaForce,1 Frank C Albers,2 Mark Cooper,3 Anna Danilewicz,4 Lynn Dunsire,3 Robert Rees,4 Christy Cappelletti5 1North Carolina Clinical Research, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2Avillion, Northbrook, IL, USA; 3BioPharmaceuticals Research and Development, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 4Avillion, London, UK; 5BioPharmaceuticals Research and Development, AstraZeneca, Durham, NC, USACorrespondence: Mark Cooper, BioPharmaceuticals Reseach and Development, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK, Email mark.cooper1@astrazeneca.comPurpose: Decentralized clinical trials, where trial-related activities occur at locations other than traditional clinical sites(eg participant homes, local healthcare facilities), have the potential to improve trial access for people for whom time and/or distance constraints may impede participation. Albuterol–budesonide 180/160 μg pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is FDA approved for the as-needed treatment or prevention of bronchoconstriction and to reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with asthma 18 years or older. BATURA (NCT05505734) is a fully decentralized study, investigating as-needed albuterol–budesonide in participants with mild asthma.Methods: BATURA is a fully decentralized, phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, event-driven exacerbation study conducted in the United States. Participants aged ≥ 12 years using as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA), alone or with low-dose inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene receptor antagonist maintenance, are randomized 1:1 to as-needed albuterol–budesonide 180/160 μg or albuterol 180 μg pMDI for up to 52 weeks (minimum 12 weeks). Participants continue their current maintenance therapy, if applicable. Participants must have used SABA for ≥ 2 days in the 2 weeks pre-enrollment and have an Asthma Impairment Risk Questionnaire score ≥ 2 at screening and randomization. All trial-related visits, including screening and consent, are conducted virtually, with study medication shipped directly to each participant’s residence. The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of as-needed albuterol–budesonide versus albuterol on severe asthma exacerbation risk, measured by time-to-first severe asthma exacerbation (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints include annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbation and total systemic corticosteroid exposure. Study medication use is captured via a Hailie sensor attached to the study medication pMDI. The intended sample size is 2500 participants.Conclusion: BATURA evaluates as-needed albuterol–budesonide in participants with mild asthma. The decentralized study model enables the trial to move out of research sites into participant homes, reducing participant burden and improving access.Keywords: decentralized clinical trials, trial design, albuterol–budesonide, SABA–ICS

Charlene M Prazma,1 Marco Idzko,2,3 Jo Anne Douglass,4 Arnaud Bourdin,5,6 Stephen Mallett,7 Frank C Albers,8 Steven W Yancey1 1Respiratory Therapeutic Area, GSK, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 2Division of Pneumology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 3Department of Pneumology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; 4The Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 5Departement de Pneumologie et Addictologie, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 6PhyMedExp, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 7Clinical Statistics, GSK, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK; 8Respiratory Medical Franchise, GSK, Research Triangle Park, NC, USACorrespondence: Charlene M PrazmaRespiratory Therapeutic Area, GSK, 5 Moore Drive, PO Box 13398, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USATel +1 919 483 9013Email charlene.m.prazma@gsk.comPurpose: Improved understanding of characteristics that may influence treatment response across phenotypes may help guide treatment decisions.Patients and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of MENSA, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT01691521). Patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma received mepolizumab (75 mg intravenously or 100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 32 weeks. Outcomes assessed were the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations and change from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score. Subgroup analyses were performed by baseline blood eosinophil count (< 150, ≥ 150– 300, ≥ 300 cells/μL) within atopic subgroups (non-atopic [specific immunoglobulin E < 0.35 kU/L], atopic [≥ 0.35– 17.5 kU/L], strongly atopic [> 17.5 kU/L]), and by house dust mite (HDM) sensitivity.Results: Of 576 patients analyzed, 272 were non-atopic, 181 were atopic and 94 were strongly atopic; 29 had missing atopy data. In patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL, mepolizumab versus placebo reduced clinically significant exacerbations by 74%, 43% and 25% in the non-atopic, atopic and strongly atopic subgroups. Similar reductions were observed in all atopic subgroups in other blood eosinophil count categories where there were sufficient patient numbers for analysis, except for non-atopic patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of < 150 cells/μL. Improvements in ACQ-5 scores of – 0.75, – 0.73 and – 0.78 with mepolizumab versus placebo were observed in non-atopic, atopic and strongly atopic patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL; consistent improvements in ACQ-5 were not observed in patients with blood eosinophil counts < 150 or ≥ 150– 300 cells/μL. Reductions in clinically significant exacerbations with mepolizumab versus placebo were also observed irrespective of sensitivity to HDMs.Conclusion: Mepolizumab was associated with a trend for reductions in clinically significant exacerbations and improved asthma control versus placebo in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, irrespective of atopic status or HDM sensitivity.Keywords: allergens and epitopes, eosinophils, asthma, asthma treatments, biologics

Hana Müllerová,1 Wilhelmine H Meeraus,1 Dmitry V Galkin,2 Frank C Albers,2 Sarah H Landis1,31Respiratory Epidemiology, GSK, Uxbridge, UK; 2Respiratory Medical Franchise, GSK, Uxbridge, NC, USA; 3Patient Centered Outcomes and Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USABackground: There are currently limited real-world data on the clinical burden of illness in patients with COPD who continue to exacerbate despite receiving triple therapy. The aim of this study was to compare the burden of COPD in patients with and without a phenotype characterized by a high blood eosinophil count and high risk of exacerbations while receiving triple therapy.Methods: This retrospective cohort study (GSK ID: 207323/PRJ2647) used UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink records linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. Eligible patients had a COPD medical diagnosis code recorded between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014, and a blood eosinophil count recorded on/after that date. Patients were followed from index date (first qualifying blood eosinophil count) until December 31, 2015. The study phenotype was defined as ≥2 moderate/≥1 severe acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) in the year prior to the index date, current use of multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), and blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells/μL on the index date. Outcomes measured during follow-up included moderate/severe AECOPDs, severe AECOPDs, all-cause mortality, primary care (GP) clinical consultations, and non-AECOPD-related unscheduled hospitalizations.Results: Of 46,814 patients eligible for inclusion, 2512 (5.4%) met the definition of the study phenotype. Adjusted rate ratios (95% CI) of moderate/severe AECOPDs and all-cause mortality in patients with the study phenotype versus those without were 2.32 (2.22, 2.43) and 1.26 (1.16, 1.37), respectively. For GP visits and non-AECOPD-related unscheduled hospitalizations, adjusted rate ratios (95% CI), in patients with the study phenotype versus those without, were 1.09 (1.05, 1.12) and 1.31 (1.18, 1.46), respectively.Conclusion: Patients with COPD and raised blood eosinophil counts who continue to exacerbate despite MITT represent a distinct subgroup who experience substantial clinical burden and account for high healthcare expenditure. There is a need for more effective management and therapeutic options for these patients.Keywords: acute exacerbations, burden of illness, eosinophils, multiple-inhaler triple therapy

What is this summary about? This summary describes the results of a clinical study called MANDALA that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2022. In the MANDALA study, researchers looked at a new asthma rescue inhaler that contains both albuterol and budesonide in a single inhaler (known as albuterol-budesonide , AIRSUPRA™). This summary describes the results for people aged 18 yearsand older who took part in the study.

Background: In the phase 3 MANDALA trial, as-needed albuterol-budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler significantly reduced severe exacerbation risk vs as-needed albuterol in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing maintenance therapy. This study (DENALI) was conducted to address the US Food and Drug Administration combination rule, which requires a combination product to demonstrate that each component contributes to its efficacy., Research Question: Do both albuterol and budesonide contribute to the efficacy of the albuterol-budesonide combination pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma?, Study Design and Methods: This phase 3 double-blind trial randomized patients aged ≥ 12 years with mild-to-moderate asthma 1:1:1:1:1 to four-times-daily albuterol-budesonide 180/160 μg or 180/80 μg, albuterol 180 μg, budesonide 160 μg, or placebo for 12 weeks. Dual-primary efficacy end points included change from baseline in FEV 1 area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (FEV 1 AUC 0-6h ) over 12 weeks (assessing albuterol effect) and trough FEV 1 at week 12 (assessing budesonide effect)., Results: Of 1,001 patients randomized, 989 were ≥ 12 years old and evaluable for efficacy. Change from baseline in FEV 1 AUC 0-6h over 12 weeks was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 μg vs budesonide 160 μg (least-squares mean [LSM] difference, 80.7 [95% CI, 28.4-132.9] mL; P = .003). Change in trough FEV 1 at week 12 was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 and 180/80 μg vs albuterol 180 μg (LSM difference, 132.8 [95% CI, 63.6-201.9] mL and 120.8 [95% CI, 51.5-190.1] mL, respectively; both P < .001). Day 1 time to onset and duration of bronchodilation with albuterol-budesonide were similar to those with albuterol. The albuterol-budesonide adverse event profile was similar to that of the monocomponents., Interpretation: Both monocomponents contributed to albuterol-budesonide lung function efficacy. Albuterol-budesonide was well tolerated, even at regular, relatively high daily doses for 12 weeks, with no new safety findings, supporting its use as a novel rescue therapy., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03847896; URL: www., Clinicaltrials: gov., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: As asthma symptoms worsen, patients typically rely on short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) rescue therapy, but SABAs do not address worsening inflammation, which leaves patients at risk for severe asthma exacerbations. The use of a fixed-dose combination of albuterol and budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication might reduce the risk of severe asthma exacerbation., Methods: We conducted a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, randomized, event-driven trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol-budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies, which were continued throughout the trial. Adults and adolescents (≥12 years of age) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three trial groups: a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 160 μg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg and 80 μg, respectively [the higher-dose combination group]), a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 80 μg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg and 40 μg, respectively [the lower-dose combination group]), or 180 μg of albuterol (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg [the albuterol-alone group]). Children 4 to 11 years of age were randomly assigned to only the lower-dose combination group or the albuterol-alone group. The primary efficacy end point was the first event of severe asthma exacerbation in a time-to-event analysis, which was performed in the intention-to-treat population., Results: A total of 3132 patients underwent randomization, among whom 97% were 12 years of age or older. The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower, by 26%, in the higher-dose combination group than in the albuterol-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The hazard ratio in the lower-dose combination group, as compared with the albuterol-alone group, was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.00; P = 0.052). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the three trial groups., Conclusions: The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower with as-needed use of a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 160 μg of budesonide than with as-needed use of albuterol alone among patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving a wide range of inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies. (Funded by Avillion; MANDALA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03769090.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experience daily activity limitations and reduced productivity at work. Using anonymized individual patient-level data from two previously conducted randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (MENSA [GSK ID:115588/NCT01691521]; MUSCA [GSK ID:200862/NCT02281318]), we investigated the effect of mepolizumab on work productivity, activity limitation, symptoms, and rescue medication use. Patient-reported outcomes including Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health (WPAI-GH) scores (impairment percentages, 0%-100%), global activity limitation (scale 1-4), and perceived change in activity limitation (Likert scale 1-7) since the start of the study were analyzed. WPAI-GH scores from MENSA were analyzed post hoc for employed patients using mixed model repeated measures; global activity limitation and perceived change in activity limitation from MUSCA were analyzed by ordinal logistic regression. Mean changes from baseline in daily asthma symptom scores (scale 0-5) and rescue medication use (occasions/day) were also assessed, via a post hoc meta-analysis of MENSA and MUSCA. At study end, WPAI-GH scores indicative of overall work impairment, impairment while working, and activity impairment consistently improved with mepolizumab versus placebo. Overall, 76% versus 54% of patients rated their activity as "much better," "better," or "slightly better" since the start of the study with mepolizumab versus placebo. Mepolizumab was associated with numerically larger improvements from baseline in asthma symptoms (treatment difference 0.21-0.29 points) and rescue medication use (treatment difference -0.08 to -0.22 occasions/day) versus placebo. Our results indicate that patients with severe eosinophilic asthma may experience improved activity limitation, work productivity, symptoms, and rescue medication use with mepolizumab., (© 2022 GlaxoSmithKline. The Clinical Respiratory Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: PT027 is a fixed-dose combination of albuterol (salbutamol) and budesonide in a single pressurized metered-dose inhaler., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol/budesonide compared with placebo in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB)., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, 2-period, single-dose crossover study, adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB (defined by ≥20% decrease from pre-exercise challenge forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV 1 ]) were randomized to albuterol/budesonide (180/160 µg) followed by placebo (n = 29) or the reverse sequence (n = 31). Subjects were stratified by background therapy (as-needed short-acting β 2 -agonist alone or low-to-medium dose inhaled corticosteroid plus as-needed short-acting β 2 -agonist). FEV 1 was measured 5 minutes pre-dose, 30 minutes postdose (5 minutes pre-exercise challenge [baseline]), and 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes postexercise. The primary end point was maximum percentage fall from baseline in FEV 1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge., Results: Least squares mean maximum percentage fall in FEV 1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge was 5.45% with albuterol/budesonide vs 18.97% with placebo (difference, -13.51% [95% confidence interval, -16.94% to -10.09%]; P < .001). More subjects were fully protected (maximum percentage fall in FEV 1 post-exercise challenge < 10%) with albuterol/budesonide than with placebo (78.3% vs 28.3%; P < .001). The treatment effect was consistent irrespective of background inhaled corticosteroid therapy, and albuterol/budesonide was well tolerated., Conclusion: In adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB, a single dose of albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg taken approximately 30 minutes before exercise was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing EIB., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04234464., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Uncontrolled asthma is associated with substantial morbidity. While fast-acting bronchodilators provide quick relief from asthma symptoms, their use as rescue fails to address the underlying inflammation. Combining a short-acting beta 2 -agonist, such as albuterol (salbutamol), with an inhaled corticosteroid, such as budesonide, in a single inhaler as rescue therapy could help control both bronchoconstriction and inflammation, and reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations., Methods and Analysis: The Phase 3 MANDALA study was designed to determine the efficacy of albuterol in combination with budesonide (albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg or 180/80 µg, two actuations of 90/80 µg or 90/40 µg, respectively) versus albuterol (180 µg, two actuations of 90 µg) as rescue therapy in adult, adolescent and paediatric patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. This event-driven study enrolled symptomatic patients (3000 adults/adolescents and 100 children aged 4-11 years) who experienced ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation in the previous year and were receiving maintenance therapy for ≥3 months prior to study entry. The primary efficacy endpoint was time-to-first severe asthma exacerbation., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki, and that are consistent with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use and Good Clinical Practice and the applicable regulatory requirements., Trial Registration: NCT03769090., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BEC is an advisor for, has received consultancy fees from, and is on the speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme. FCA is an employee of Avillion. LR was an employee of Avillion when the study was conducted. EJ and CC are employees of AstraZeneca. AP reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, TEVA, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca and Menarini, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Mundipharma, Zambon, Novartis and Sanofi/Regeneron, personal fees from Roche and Edmondpharma and grants from Fondazione Maugeri and Fondazione Chiesi, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Severe asthma is associated with a broad range of phenotypes and clinical characteristics. This analysis assessed whether select baseline patient characteristics could prognosticate mepolizumab efficacy in severe eosinophilic asthma., Methods: This was a post hoc meta-analysis of data from the Phase III MENSA (NCT01691521/MEA115588) and MUSCA (NCT02281318/200862) studies. Patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of exacerbations were randomised to receive placebo (MENSA/MUSCA), mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously (MENSA) or 100 mg subcutaneously (SC) (MENSA/MUSCA) every 4 weeks for 32 (MENSA) or 24 (MUSCA) weeks. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations; other outcomes included the proportion of patients with no exacerbations and changes from baseline in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score. Analyses were performed by baseline age of asthma onset (< 18 years; 18-40 years; ≥ 40 years); lung function (% predicted FEV 1  ≤ 60; 60-80; > 80); airway reversibility (reversible [≥ 12% change in FEV 1 ]; non-reversible [< 12% change in FEV 1 ]); perennial and/or seasonal allergen sensitivity (yes/no); asthma control (uncontrolled [ACQ-5 score ≥ 1.5]; partial/complete control [ACQ-5 score < 1.5])., Results: Overall, 936 patients received mepolizumab 100 mg SC or placebo. Across age at asthma onset, lung function and airway reversibility subgroups, mepolizumab reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations by 49-63% versus placebo. Improvements in lung function, SGRQ total score and ACQ-5 score were also seen with mepolizumab versus placebo across most age and lung function subgroups. Clinically significant exacerbations were reduced with mepolizumab versus placebo irrespective of season or allergen sensitivity; SGRQ total and ACQ-5 scores were generally improved across seasons., Conclusions: Mepolizumab efficacy was consistent for patients with varying age at asthma onset, lung function, airway reversibility and allergen sensitivities at baseline. Our results indicate that mepolizumab is likely to be beneficial for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with a broad range of baseline clinical characteristics; large-scale real-world studies are needed to confirm the external validity of these findings. Trial registration Post hoc meta-analysis of data from MENSA (NCT01691521/MEA115588) and MUSCA (NCT02281318/200862).

Background: The OSMO study assessed the efficacy of switching to mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma that was uncontrolled whilst receiving omalizumab. The objective of this analysis was to assess the proportion of patients achieving pre-defined improvements in up to four efficacy outcomes and the relationship between patient baseline characteristics and treatment response., Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of OSMO study data (GSK ID:204471; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02654145). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, other controller(s) and omalizumab subcutaneously (≥ 4 months) were switched to mepolizumab 100 mg administered subcutaneously. Endpoints included the proportion of responders-i.e. patients achieving a pre-defined clinical improvement in ≥ 1 of the following outcomes: (1) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score (≥ 0.5-points), (2) St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥ 4-points), (3) pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV 1 ; ≥ 100 mL), all at Week 32, and (4) annualised rate of clinically significant exacerbations (≥ 50% reduction)., Results: Of the 145 patients included, 94%, 83%, 63% and 31% were responders for ≥ 1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3 and 4 outcomes, respectively; 75% and 78% were ACQ-5 and SGRQ score responders, and 50% and 69% were FEV 1 and exacerbation responders. Subgroup analyses demonstrated improvements irrespective of baseline blood eosinophil count, prior omalizumab treatment regimen/duration, comorbidities, prior exacerbation history, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, ACQ-5 and SGRQ scores, and body weight/body mass index., Conclusions: After switching to mepolizumab, almost all patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma on omalizumab achieved a beneficial response in ≥ 1 clinical outcome. Improvements were observed regardless of baseline characteristics. Trial registration This manuscript is a post hoc analysis of data from the OSMO study. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654145. Registered January 13, 2016.

Objectives: Severe asthma (SA) can be uncontrolled despite guideline-directed treatment. We described SA characteristics and identified factors associated with uncontrolled disease and frequent exacerbations., Methods: Post hoc analysis of the observational IDEAL study (201722/NCT02293265) included patients with SA aged ≥12 years receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus additional controller(s) for ≥12 months. Uncontrolled SA was defined by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 scores ≥1.5 or ≥1 exacerbations (prior year), and further stratified by exacerbation frequency (no/infrequent [0-1] vs frequent [≥2]; prior year); associated factors were determined using multivariate logistic regression., Results: Of 670 patients with SA, 540 (81%) were uncontrolled (ACQ-5 scores ≥1.5: 80%; ≥1 exacerbations [prior year]: 71%). Uncontrolled patients had lower lung function and worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than controlled patients; 197/540 (37%) experienced frequent exacerbations (prior year). Worse St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, comorbid sinusitis, or eczema were significantly associated with uncontrolled SA; younger age, never smoker status, exacerbation requiring hospitalization (previous year), worse SGRQ symptom score, comorbid nasal polyps, COPD, or osteoporosis were significantly associated with uncontrolled SA with frequent exacerbations., Conclusions: In IDEAL, one-fifth of patients with SA were controlled, based on symptoms. Uncontrolled, exacerbating SA was associated with specific comorbidities, frequent exacerbations, a lower lung function, and compromised HRQoL, although inference from this analysis is limited by the selective cross-sectional nature of the cohort. Nonetheless, these data highlight the need for more effective precision treatments in this population.

Background/aims: The efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma has been evaluated in a global clinical trial programme. This post hoc analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in Korean patients., Methods: Data from Korean patients in the Phase III, placebo-controlled, randomised DREAM (MEA112997/NCT01000506) and MENSA (MEA115588/ NCT01691521) studies were included. Patients ≥ 12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma received mepolizumab (DREAM: 75, 250 or 750 mg intravenously [IV]; MENSA: 75 mg IV or 100 mg subcutaneously [SC]), or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks (DREAM) or 32 weeks (MENSA). The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations. Secondary outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores (MENSA only). Blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and safety were assessed throughout., Results: Reductions in the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations were observed with the approved (100 mg SC) and bioequivalent (75 mg IV) doses of mepolizumab in Korean patients who participated in DREAM and MENSA. In MENSA, trends for improvements from baseline at week 32 in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (75 mg IV group), ACQ-5 and SGRQ scores (in both treatment groups) were seen versus placebo in Korean patients. Incidence of on-treatment adverse events was similar in Korean patients versus non-Korean patients as were observed reductions from baseline in BEC., Conclusion: Mepolizumab treatment provided clinical benefits for Korean patients with severe eosinophilic asthma; the safety profile is consistent with the overall population.

Background: Mepolizumab (100 mg delivered s.c. every 4 weeks) is indicated for add-on maintenance treatment for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. Mepolizumab has been shown to reduce exacerbations and the requirement for daily oral corticosteroids, and improve asthma control and symptoms. However, data on the durability of the response to mepolizumab during dosing periods are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy profile in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma over the 4-weekly dosing period for various fixed mepolizumab doses., Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of data from the phase IIb/III DREAM study. Patients ≥12 years of age with severe eosinophilic asthma were randomised (1:1:1:1) to receive intravenous mepolizumab 75 mg (equivalent to 100 mg s.c.), 250 mg, 750 mg or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The number of exacerbations and eDiary data (peak expiratory flow, rescue medication use and symptom scores) from two periods in each 4-weekly dosing interval (days 1-14 and 15-28) over the 52-week treatment period were analysed., Findings: eDiary data and the proportion of patients experiencing ≥1 exacerbation were similar during the first and second 2 weeks of a dosing period across all mepolizumab doses., Interpretation: These results demonstrate that the response to mepolizumab is sustained over the 4-weekly dosing period with no differences across a 10-fold dose range and supports the use of the current mepolizumab dosing regimen in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: I.D. Pavord reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. In addition, he reports speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Aerocrine, Almirall, Teva, Sanofi, Regeneron, and GSK; fees for organising educational events, honoraria for attending advisory panels and sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings AstraZeneca; honoraria for attending advisory panels and sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim; a research grant, sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings, honoraria for attending advisory panels and speaking fees from Chiesi; honoraria for attending advisory panels from Circassia and Genentech; honoraria for attending advisory panels and sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from GSK; honoraria for attending advisory panels from Knopp and Merck; speaking fees and honoraria for attending advisory panels from Novartis and Regeneron; fees for organising educational events and honoraria for attending advisory panels from Sanofi; and fees for organising educational events, honoraria for attending advisory panels and sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Teva, all outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E.R. Bleecker reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. In addition, he reports consultancy fees from ALK-Abello; grants for clinical trials administered through Wake Forest and University of Arizona, and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; grants for clinical trials administered through Wake Forest and University of Arizona from Boehringer Ingelheim and Genentech; consultancy fees from GSK; grants for clinical trials administered through Wake Forest and University of Arizona, and consultancy fees from MedImmune, Novartis, Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme; and consultancy fees from Teva, all outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R. Buhl reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. In addition, he reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi and Cipla, grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Roche, and personal fees from Sanofi and Teva, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Chanez reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. In addition, he reports personal fees for advisory boards from Almirall, grants and personal fees for lectures from Alk-Abello, grants and personal fees for consultancy, advisory boards and lectures from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees for lectures from Boston Scientific and Centocor, grants and personal fees for consultancy, advisory boards and lectures from Chiesi and GSK, personal fees for consultancy and advisory boards from Johnson & Johnson, consultancy fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants and personal fees for consultancy, advisory boards and lectures from Novartis, an industry-sponsored grant from Roche, personal fees for consultancy and advisory boards from Sanofi, and grants and personal fees for consultancy, advisory boards and lectures from Teva, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E.H. Bel reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. In addition, she reports speaking and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi, and an unrestricted grant for research from Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bel reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from GSK, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Sanofi, grants from Teva, personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Howarth reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. He is an employee of and holds shares/options in GSK. Conflict of interest: D.J. Bratton reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. He is an employee of and holds shares/options in GSK. Conflict of interest: F.C. Albers this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. He is a former employee of and owns stocks/shares in GSK, and a current employee of Avillion US Inc. Conflict of interest: S. Yancey reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Medical writing support by Fishawack Indicia Ltd was also funded by GSK. He is an employee of and holds shares/options in GSK., (Copyright ©ERS 2020.)

Objective: To assess the effect of asthma exacerbations and mepolizumab treatment on health status of patients with severe asthma using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Methods: Post hoc analyses were conducted using data from two randomized controlled trials in patients ≥12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma randomized to receive placebo or mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously (32-week MENSA study) or 100 mg subcutaneously (MENSA/24-week MUSCA studies), and an observational single-visit study in patients with severe asthma (IDEAL). Linear regression models assessed the impact of historical exacerbations on baseline SGRQ total and domain scores (using data from each of the three studies), and within-study severe exacerbations and mepolizumab treatment on end-of-study SGRQ scores (using data from MENSA/MUSCA). Results: Overall, 1755 patients were included (MENSA, N  = 540; MUSCA, N = 551; IDEAL, N  = 664). In all studies, higher numbers of historical exacerbations were associated with worse baseline SGRQ total scores. Each additional historical exacerbation (beyond the second [MENSA/MUSCA]) or first [IDEAL] was associated with worsening mean total SGRQ scores of +1.5, +1.1 at baseline and +2.3 within the year prior to study enrollment. During MENSA and MUSCA, each within-study severe exacerbation was associated with a worsening in total SGRQ score of +2.4 and +3.4 points at study end. Independent of exacerbation reduction, mepolizumab accounted for an improvement in total SGRQ score of -5.3 points (MENSA) and -6.2 points (MUSCA). Conclusions: These findings support an association between a higher number of exacerbations and worse health status in patients with severe (eosinophilic) asthma.

Background: Improved understanding of the normal range of blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and conditions that influence them in non-asthmatic individuals should allow more accurate estimation of the threshold at which eosinophilic disease should be considered, diagnosed, and treated. This analysis investigated the impact of atopy, smoking, and parasitic infection on BEC., Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of non-asthmatic subjects from a case-control study (CONEP 450/10) conducted at the Program for Control of Asthma in Bahia (ProAR). Participant BECs were measured at baseline; correlations between predefined risk factors and BEC were assessed via univariate and stratified analysis., Results: Of the 454 participants included, 3% were helminth parasite-positive, 18% were non-helminth parasite-positive; and 450 had BEC data. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) BEC was 152 (96, 252) cells/μL. Any positive skin prick test, elevated total immunoglobulin E, allergic rhinitis, and being a current smoker were all individually associated with higher BEC (p < 0.05) compared with BEC in participants without these factors, but having a non-helminthic parasitic infection was not. Participants with all 4 risk factors that were associated with higher BEC had a median (IQR) BEC of 192 cells/μL (94, 416) versus 106 cells/μL (70, 164) for those with no risk factors., Conclusions: In non-asthmatic subjects, atopy, allergic rhinitis, and current smoking status were associated with higher BEC compared with subjects without these factors, but BEC values were well below the threshold commonly accepted as normal. Therefore, BEC should be interpreted in the context of an individual's medical conditions and other BEC-influencing factors., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Background: Data on the risk of death following an asthma exacerbation are scarce. With this multinational cohort study, we assessed all-cause mortality rates, mortality rates following an exacerbation, and patient characteristics associated with all-cause mortality in asthma., Methods: Asthma patients aged ≥18 years and with ≥1 year of follow-up were identified in 5 European electronic databases from the Netherlands, Italy, UK, Denmark and Spain during the study period January 1, 2008-December 31, 2013. Patients with asthma-COPD overlap were excluded. Severe asthma was defined as use of high dose ICS + use of a second controller. Severe asthma exacerbations were defined as emergency department visits, hospitalizations or systemic corticosteroid use, all for reason of asthma., Results: The cohort consisted of 586,436 asthma patients of which 42,611 patients (7.3%) had severe asthma. The age and sex standardized all-cause mortality rates ranged between databases from 5.2 to 9.5/1000 person-years (PY) in asthma, and between 11.3 and 14.8/1000 PY in severe asthma. The all-cause mortality rate in the first week following a severe asthma exacerbation ranged between 14.1 and 59.9/1000 PY. Mortality rates remained high in the first month following a severe asthma exacerbation and decreased thereafter. Higher age, male gender, comorbidity, smoking, and previous severe asthma exacerbations were associated with mortality., Conclusion: All-cause mortality following a severe exacerbation is high, especially in the first month following the event. Smoking cessation, comorbidity-management and asthma-treatment focusing on the prevention of exacerbations might reduce associated mortality., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest FA, SC, and EB are GSK employees and own stocks/shares in GSK. NB and RS were employees of GSK at the time this research was conducted and own stocks/shares in GSK. GP, CG, KB have no conflicts to declare. FL has received grants from Chiesi, GSK and Novartis. DPA has received research grants from Amgen, Bioiberica and GSK and speaker/advisory fees from Amgen and Bioiberica, paid to his department. KV has received grants from GSK and ZonMw. MR, PR, MS and KV's institution has received unconditional research grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Yamanouchi, Servier, and Johnson & Johnson, unrelated to the current manuscript; MR, PR, MS and KV's received an unconditional grant from GSK to conduct research on incidence and risk factors of asthma exacerbations as part of the GSK/EU-ADR alliance. ES's institution (Aarhus University) has received a grant from the GSK/EU-ADR alliance related to this study. GB has received fees for lectures and/or advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi and Teva., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous analyses examining the relationship between blood eosinophil count and mepolizumab treatment effects in severe eosinophilic asthma have used a range of doses and administration routes., Methods: This post hoc meta-analysis included data from the MENSA (MEA115588/NCT01691521) and MUSCA (200862/NCT02281318) trials. Patients (≥12 years) with severe eosinophilic asthma who experienced ≥2 exacerbations in the prior year received either mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously (SC) or 75 mg intravenously, or placebo plus standard of care every 4 weeks. This meta-analysis reports data from patients receiving the licensed dose of mepolizumab (100 mg SC) or placebo only. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations; secondary endpoints included rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization/emergency room (ER) visit, proportion of patients with no clinically significant exacerbations, and changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s, Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores. Analyses were stratified by baseline blood eosinophil count (<150, ≥150, ≥300, ≥400, ≥500, ≥750, ≥1000, ≥150-<300, or ≥300-<500 cells/μL)., Results: Mepolizumab reduced annual clinically significant exacerbation rates by 45%-85%, exacerbations requiring hospitalization/ER visit by 60%-70%, and increased the odds of no clinically significant exacerbations across all eosinophil threshold subgroups versus placebo, and improved all other secondary endpoints in subgroups ≥150 cells/μL. Greater treatment effects with increasing blood eosinophil count were observed., Conclusions: Mepolizumab demonstrated consistent clinical benefits in patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/μL, confirming the suitability of this cut-off for identifying patients responsive to the licensed mepolizumab dose., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with the most severe eosinophilic asthma., Methods: This multicenter, open-label, long-term, Phase IIIb study (COSMEX [COSMOS Extension]; 201312/NCT02135692) enrolled patients from the 52-week, open-label extension study COSMOS (A Study to Determine Long-term Safety of Mepolizumab in Asthmatic Subjects) that previously enrolled patients from the double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase III studies MENSA (Mepolizumab as Adjunctive Therapy in Patients with Severe Asthma) and SIRIUS (Steroid Reduction with Mepolizumab Study). To enter COSMEX, patients had to have life-threatening/seriously debilitating asthma before entering MENSA or SIRIUS and to have completed these previous studies with demonstrated improvement while receiving mepolizumab. In COSMEX, patients received mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks as add-on therapy for up to 172 weeks. Primary endpoints were adverse event frequency and exacerbation rate per year; also assessed were forced expiratory volume in 1 s, Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score, and daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) use., Findings: Of the 340 patients enrolled, 339 received mepolizumab; median treatment duration within this extension study was 2.2 years, equating to 718 patient-years of additional exposure. No new safety signals were identified. Patients receiving mepolizumab throughout this study and previous studies had lasting reductions in exacerbation rate and daily OCS use and improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s and Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score. In COSMEX, the on-treatment exacerbation rate (95% CI) was 0.93 (0.81-1.06) event/year for clinically significant exacerbations, 0.13 (0.10-0.18) event/year for exacerbations requiring hospitalization/emergency department visit, and 0.07 (0.05-0.10) event/year for exacerbations requiring hospitalization. In patients requiring systemic/oral corticosteroids with ≥128 weeks of continuous enrollment across SIRIUS, COSMOS, and COSMEX, mepolizumab maintained the median daily OCS dose at 1.3-2.8 mg during COSMEX, with additional patients no longer requiring OCS after extended mepolizumab treatment., Implications: This study indicates that long-term mepolizumab treatment is well tolerated and associated with sustained clinical benefits in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02135692., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mepolizumab and omalizumab are treatments for distinct but overlapping severe asthma phenotypes., Objective: To assess if patients eligible for both biologics but not optimally controlled with omalizumab experience improved asthma control when switched directly to mepolizumab., Methods: OSMO was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, 32-week trial in patients with ≥2 asthma exacerbations in the year prior to enrollment, despite receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and other controller(s), plus omalizumab (≥4 months). At baseline, patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL (or ≥300 cells/µL in the prior year) and an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score ≥1.5 discontinued omalizumab and immediately commenced mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Endpoints included change from baseline in ACQ-5 score (primary), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and the proportions of ACQ-5 and SGRQ responders, all at Week 32, and the annualized exacerbation rate over the study period., Results: At Week 32 (intent-to-treat population [n = 145]), the least squares (LS) mean changes (standard error [SE]) in ACQ-5 and SGRQ total scores were -1.45 (0.107) and -19.0 (1.64) points; with 77% and 79% of patients achieving the minimum clinically important differences (ACQ-5: ≥0.5 points; SGRQ: ≥4 points), respectively. The annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations was 1.18 events/year, a 64% reduction from 3.26 events/year during the previous year. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were consistent with previous trials., Conclusion: After directly switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab, patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma experienced clinically significant improvements in asthma control, health status, and exacerbation rate, with no tolerability issues reported., (© 2019 The Authors. Allergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: We assessed the efficacy of the licensed mepolizumab dose (100 mg subcutaneously [SC]) in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma according to body weight/body mass index (BMI)., Methods: This was a post hoc individual patient-level meta-analysis of data from the Phase 3 studies MENSA (MEA115588/NCT01691521) and MUSCA (200862/NCT02281318). Patients aged ≥12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of exacerbations were randomised to 4-weekly placebo, mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously (IV) or 100 mg SC (MENSA) or placebo or mepolizumab 100 mg SC (MUSCA) for 32 (MENSA) or 24 (MUSCA) weeks. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations; other outcomes included the proportion of patients with no exacerbations, lung function, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) scores and blood eosinophil counts. Analyses were performed by baseline body weight and BMI (≤60, > 60-75, > 75-90, > 90, < 100, ≥100 kg; ≤25, > 25-30, > 30, < 36, ≥36 kg/m 2 )., Results: Overall, 936 patients received placebo or mepolizumab 100 mg SC. Across all body weight/BMI categories, mepolizumab reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations by 49-70% versus placebo. Improvements with mepolizumab versus placebo were also seen in lung function in all body weight/BMI categories except > 90 kg; improvements in SGRQ and ACQ-5 scores were seen across all categories., Conclusions: Mepolizumab 100 mg SC has consistent clinical benefits in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma across a range of body weights and BMIs. Data show that the fixed-dose regimen of mepolizumab is suitable, without the need for weight-based dosing., Trial Registration: This manuscript is a post hoc meta-analysis of data from the Phase 3 studies MENSA and MUSCA. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01691521 (MEA115588; MENSA). Registered September 24, 2012. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02281318 (200862; MUSCA). Registered November 3, 2014.

Background: There are limited data that describe the association between markers of asthma control and depressive symptoms in severe asthma. Objective: To evaluate the association between depressive symptoms and markers of asthma control in patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma. Methods: Baseline data from the MENSA and SIRIUS studies (N = 681) of mepolizumab intervention in severe eosinophilic asthma was used. We analyzed the relationships between depressive symptom severity by using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and quality of life by using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), asthma control questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5), polypharmacy, and sleep symptoms. Results: When compared with patients with less severe depressive symptoms, patients with more severe depressive symptoms were predominantly female (81% versus 54%), had a higher mean body mass index (30.56 versus 27.67 kg/m²), were more likely to have a blood eosinophil count of ≥300 cells/uL within the previous 12 months (81% versus 68%), and to have experienced a near-fatal asthma event (16% versus 7%). The mean SGRQ score was higher in the severe BDI-II category compared with the minimal depressive symptoms category, which indicated a worse quality of life (71.6 versus 41.4, p < 0.001) . Eighty-nine percent of the patients in the severe BDI-II category had poorly controlled asthma (ACQ-5 score ≥ 1.5) compared with 63% in the minimal category (p < 0.001) . Conclusion: Increased severity of depressive symptoms was associated with worse respiratory-related quality of life and asthma control in the patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. These findings highlight the need for a multidimensional approach for the management of uncontrolled asthma, including timely identification of depressive symptoms. Additional research is needed to further explore the interactions between the two common conditions.Clinical trials NCT01691521 and NCT01619508, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Background: Patients with severe asthma can present with overlapping eosinophilic and allergic phenotypes, which makes it challenging when deciding which biologic therapy is most appropriate to reduce exacerbations and help achieve asthma control., Objective: This post hoc meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of the licensed dose of mepolizumab (100 mg administered subcutaneously [SC]) versus placebo in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), according to omalizumab eligibility and associated allergic characteristics., Methods: Data from two Phase 3 studies (MENSA [MEA115588/NCT01691521]; MUSCA [200862/NCT02281318]) were analyzed. Patients ≥12 years of age with SEA who experienced ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year received placebo, mepolizumab 100 mg SC or 75 mg intravenously, plus standard of care (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and other controllers), every 4 weeks. Data from patients who received ≥1 dose placebo or mepolizumab 100 mg SC were used for this analysis. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations; other outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) score and quality of life measured using St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)., Results: Rate reductions in clinically significant exacerbations with mepolizumab versus placebo were similar in omalizumab eligible and ineligible patients (57% vs 55%). FEV 1 , ACQ-5 and SGRQ scores improved with mepolizumab versus placebo regardless of omalizumab eligibility, Immunoglobulin E levels, or atopic status., Conclusion: This analysis indicated that mepolizumab 100 mg SC has clinical benefit in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/μL (or history of ≥300 cells/μL), regardless of allergic characteristics or omalizumab eligibility., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mepolizumab has demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy profiles in placebo-controlled trials of 12 months' duration or less; however, long-term data are lacking., Objective: We sought to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA)., Methods: COLUMBA (Open-label Long Term Extension Safety Study of Mepolizumab in Asthmatic Subjects, NCT01691859) was an open-label extension study in patients with SEA previously enrolled in DREAM (Dose Ranging Efficacy And Safety With Mepolizumab in Severe Asthma, NCT01000506). Patients received 100 mg of subcutaneous mepolizumab every 4 weeks plus standard of care until a protocol-defined stopping criterion was met. Safety end points included frequency of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of special interest. Efficacy end points included annualized exacerbation rates, changes from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 scores, and blood eosinophil counts. Immunogenicity was also assessed., Results: Overall, 347 patients were enrolled for an average of 3.5 years (maximum, 4.5 years; total exposure, 1201 patient-years). On-treatment AEs were reported in 94% of patients (exposure-adjusted rate, 3688 events/1000 patient-years). The most frequently reported on-treatment AEs were respiratory tract infection, headache, bronchitis, and asthma worsening. Seventy-nine (23%) patients experienced 1 or more on-treatment serious AEs; there were 6 deaths, none of which were assessed as related to mepolizumab. For patients with 156 weeks or greater enrollment, the exacerbation rate was 0.74 events/y (weeks 0-156), a 56% reduction from the off-treatment period between DREAM and COLUMBA. For all patients, at the first postbaseline assessment, the mean Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 score was reduced by 0.47 points, and blood eosinophil counts were reduced by 78%, with similar improvements maintained throughout the study. The immunogenicity profile (8% anti-drug antibodies) was consistent with previous studies., Conclusion: These data support the long-term safety and efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with SEA., (Copyright © 2018 GlaxoSmithKline. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Three anti-IL-5 pathway-directed therapies are approved for use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA); however, no head-to-head comparison data are available., Objective: We sought to compare the efficacy of licensed doses of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab in patients with SEA, according to baseline blood eosinophil counts., Methods: This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used data from a Cochrane review and independent searches. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials in patients aged 12 years or greater with SEA. End points included annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations and change from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire score and FEV 1 . An ITC was performed in patients with Asthma Control Questionnaire scores of 1.5 or greater and stratified by baseline blood eosinophil count., Results: Eleven studies were included. All treatments significantly reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations and improved asthma control versus placebo in all blood eosinophil count subgroups. Mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations by 34% to 45% versus benralizumab across subgroups (rate ratio ≥400 cells/μL: 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35-0.87]; ≥300 cells/μL: 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37-0.99]; and ≥150 cells/μL: 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.89]; all P < .05) and by 45% versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/μL or greater subgroup (rate ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.85]; P = .007). Asthma control was significantly improved with mepolizumab versus benralizumab (all subgroups: P < .05) and versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/μL or greater subgroup (P = .004). Benralizumab significantly improved lung function versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/μL or greater subgroup (P = .025)., Conclusions: This ITC of the licensed doses suggests that mepolizumab was associated with significantly greater improvements in clinically significant exacerbations and asthma control compared with reslizumab or benralizumab in patients with similar blood eosinophil counts., (Copyright © 2018 GlaxoSmithKline. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited data describe the association between the frequency of asthma exacerbations and the decline in lung function in severe asthma., Objective: To determine whether asthma exacerbations are associated with enhanced decline in lung function., Methods: Changes in lung function were analyzed retrospectively using data from the DREAM and MENSA studies of mepolizumab intervention in patients with severe asthma. Patients were either nonsmokers or former smokers. A linear regression model was used to analyze the relationship between the number of exacerbations and decline in FEV 1 across treatment groups., Results: In a combined post hoc analysis, 57% (n = 572) of patients had no exacerbations and experienced an improvement in postbronchodilator FEV 1 of 143 mL. In contrast, in patients who experienced 3 or more exacerbations, there was a decrease in postbronchodilator FEV 1 of 77 mL in the combined analysis. The linear modeling analysis estimated that for each exacerbation seen during the observational period, there was a decrease of 50 mL in FEV 1 (P < .001)., Conclusions: A direct relationship between the number of exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and decline in lung function was observed. Repeated exacerbations may be associated with accelerated loss of lung function., (Copyright © 2018 GlaxoSmithKline. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mepolizumab significantly reduces exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The early identification of patients likely to receive long-term benefit from treatment could ensure effective resource allocation., Objective: To assess potential continuation rules for mepolizumab in addition to initiation criteria defined as 2 or more exacerbations in the previous year and blood eosinophil counts of 150 cells/μL or more at initiation or 300 cells/μL or more in the previous year., Methods: This post hoc analysis included data from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (NCT01000506 and NCT01691521) of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (N = 1,192). Rules based on blood eosinophils, physician-rated response to treatment, FEV 1 , Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) score, and exacerbation reduction were assessed at week 16. To assess these rules, 2 key metrics accounting for the effects observed in the placebo arm were developed., Results: Patients not meeting continuation rules based on physician-rated response, FEV 1 , and the ACQ-5 score still derived long-term benefit from mepolizumab. Nearly all patients failing to reduce blood eosinophils had counts of 150 cells/μL or less at baseline. For exacerbations, assessment after 16 weeks was potentially premature for predicting future exacerbations., Conclusion: There was no evidence of a reliable physician-rated response, ACQ-5 score, or lung function-based continuation rule. The added value of changes in blood eosinophils at week 16 over baseline was marginal. Initiation criteria for mepolizumab treatment provide the best method for assessing patient benefit from mepolizumab treatment, and treatment continuation should be reviewed on the basis of a predefined reduction in long-term exacerbation frequency and/or oral corticosteroid dose., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Severe asthma comprises several distinct phenotypes. Consequently, patients with severe asthma can be eligible for more than one biologic treatment targeting Th2 inflammation, such as anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-immunoglobulin (Ig) E. The objective of this study was to describe treatment eligibility and overlap in treatment eligibility for mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), omalizumab (anti-IgE) and reslizumab (anti-IL-5) in patients with severe asthma, who were recruited from clinical practice., Methods: This cross-sectional, single-visit, observational study in six countries enrolled patients with severe asthma (defined by American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines). Assessable patients were analysed as a total cohort and a sub-cohort, who were not currently receiving omalizumab. Treatment eligibility was defined according to the local prescribing information or protocol-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Patients currently receiving omalizumab were automatically categorised as omalizumab-eligible., Results: The total cohort comprised 670 patients who met the analysis criteria, of whom 20% were eligible for mepolizumab, 31-41% were eligible for omalizumab (depending on eligibility criteria used), and 5% were eligible for reslizumab. In patients not currently receiving omalizumab (n = 502), proportions eligible for each biologic were similar (mepolizumab: 20%, reslizumab 6%) or lower (omalizumab 7-21%) than those for the total cohort. Overlap in treatment eligibility varied; in mepolizumab-eligible patients not currently receiving omalizumab (n = 101), 27-37% were omalizumab-eligible and 18% were reslizumab-eligible., Conclusions: Treatment eligibility for mepolizumab and omalizumab was higher than that for reslizumab. Although there was some overlap in treatment eligibility, the patient groups eligible for treatment with anti-IL-5 or anti-IgE therapies were often distinct, emphasising the different phenotypes and endotypes in severe asthma.

The last decade has seen the approval of several new biologics for the treatment of severe asthma-targeting specific endotypes and phenotypes. This review will examine how evidence generated from the mepolizumab clinical development program showed that blood eosinophil counts, rather than sputum or tissue eosinophil counts, evolved as a pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarker for the efficacy of treatment with mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. Based on the available evidence and combined with clinical judgement, a baseline blood eosinophil threshold of 150 cells/μL or greater or a historical blood eosinophil threshold of 300 cells/μL or greater will allow selection of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who are most likely to achieve clinically significant reductions in the rate of exacerbations with mepolizumab treatment., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)