Search

Rationale: The past 25 years have seen huge progress in understanding of the pathobiology of type-2 (T2) asthma, identification of measurable biomarkers, and the emergence of novel monoclonal antibody treatments. Although present in a minority of patients with severe asthma, very little is known about the mechanisms underlying T2-low asthma, making it a significant unmet need in asthma research. Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore the differences between study exacerbators and nonexacerbators, to describe physiological changes at exacerbation in those who are T2 HIGH and T2 LOW at the time of exacerbation, and to evaluate the stability of inflammatory phenotypes when stable and at exacerbation. Methods: Exacerbation assessment was a prespecified secondary analysis of data from a 48-week, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study comparing the use of biomarkers and symptoms to adjust steroid treatment in a T2-low severe asthma-enriched cohort. Participants were phenotyped as T2 LOW (fractional exhaled nitric oxide < 20 ppb and blood eosinophil count < 150 cells/ml) or T2 HIGH (fractional exhaled nitric oxide. 20 or blood eosinophil count. 150) at study enrollment and at each exacerbation. Here, we report the findings of the exacerbation analyses, including comparison of exacerbators and nonexacerbators, the physiological changes at exacerbation in those who had evidence of T2 biology at exacerbation versus those that did not, and the stability of inflammatory phenotypes when stable and at exacerbation.Measurements and Main Results: Of the 301 participants, 60.8% (183) had one or more self-reported exacerbations (total of 390). Exacerbators were more likely to be female, have a higher body mass index, and have more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid and unscheduled primary care attendances for exacerbations. At enrollment, 23.6% (71) were T2 LOW and 76.4% (230) T2 HIGH. The T2 LOW group had more asthma primary care attendances, were more likely to have a previous admission to HDU (high dependency unit)/ICU and to be receiving maintenance oral corticosteroids. At exacerbation, the T2 LOW events were indistinguishable from T2 HIGH exacerbations in terms of lung function (mean fall in T2 LOW FEV 1, 200 [400] ml vs. T2 HIGH 200 [300] ml; P = 0.93) and symptom increase (ACQ5: T2 LOW, 1.4 [0.8] vs. T2 HIGH, 1.3 [0.8]; P = 0.72), with no increase in T2 biomarkers from stable to exacerbation state in the T2 LOW exacerbations. The inflammatory phenotype within individual patients was dynamic; inflammatory phenotype at study entry did not have a significant association with exacerbation phenotype. Conclusions: Asthma exacerbations demonstrating a T2 LOW phenotype were physiologically and symptomatically similar to T2 HIGH exacerbations. T2 LOW asthma was an unstable phenotype, suggesting that exacerbation phenotyping should occur at the time of exacerbation. The clinically significant exacerbations in participants without evidence of T2 biology at the time of exacerbation highlight the unmet and pressing need to further understand the mechanisms at play in non-T2 asthma.

To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization or emergency room visit. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs. Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab. Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses. Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.

BackgroundApproximately 5% to 10% of patients with asthma have severe disease, with a consistent preponderance in females. Current asthma guidelines recommend stepwise treatment to achieve symptom control with no differential treatment considerations for either sex.ObjectiveTo examine whether patient sex affects outcomes when using a composite T2-biomarker score to adjust corticosteroid (CS) treatment in patients with severe asthma compared with standard care.MethodsThis is a post hoc analysis, stratifying patient outcomes by sex, of a 48-week, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing a biomarker-defined treatment algorithm with standard care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction in CS treatment (inhaled and oral corticosteroids). Secondary outcomes included exacerbation rates, hospital admissions, and lung function.ResultsOf the 301 patients randomized, 194 (64.5%) were females and 107 (35.5%) were males. The biomarker algorithm led to a greater proportion of females being on a lower CS dose versus standard care, which was not seen in males (effect estimate: females, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.14-11.18 vs males, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.16-1.80). In T2-biomarker–low females, reducing CS dose was not associated with increased exacerbations. Females scored higher in all domains of the 7-item Asthma Control Questionnaire, apart from FEV1, but with no difference when adjusted for body mass index/anxiety and/or depression. Dissociation between symptoms and T2 biomarkers were noted in both sexes, with a higher proportion of females being symptom high/T2-biomarker low (22.8% vs 15.6%; P = .0002), whereas males were symptom low/T2-biomarker high (22.3% vs 11.4%; P < .0001).ConclusionsThis exploratory post hoc analysis identified that females achieved a greater benefit from biomarker-directed CS optimization versus symptom-directed treatment.

Consensus definitions for clinical remission and super-response were recently established for severe asthma. Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 (IL-5) receptor α-directed monoclonal antibody for severe, uncontrolled asthma; efficacy and safety were demonstrated in previous pivotal phase 3 trials (SIROCCO, CALIMA, ZONDA). This analysis applied a composite remission definition to characterize individual responses to benralizumab after 6 and 12 months.In previous phase 3 studies, eligible patients were those with severe, uncontrolled asthma receiving medium- or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting βOverall, 609 patients (N = 301 and N = 308) and 586 patients (N = 293 and N = 293) receiving benralizumab in SIROCCO and CALIMA were included at 6 and 12 months, respectively; 40 ZONDA patients were included after 6 months. In SIROCCO/CALIMA, similar to 6-month findings, approx. 83% and approx. 49% receiving benralizumab, and 77% and 37% on placebo achieved ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 remission components after 12 months; 14.5% (85/586) on benralizumab and 7.7% (48/620) on placebo achieved clinical remission at 12 months. Among ZONDA patients, 75% and approx. 48% on benralizumab and 35% and 20% on placebo achieved ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 remission components at 6 months, respectively; 22.5% (9/40) on benralizumab and 7.5% on placebo achieved clinical remission.This analysis demonstrates clinical remission is achievable by targeting the underlying drivers of inflammation. Precision medicines can help shift treatment paradigms toward treat-to-target, with clinical remission as the ultimate therapeutic goal in severe asthma.SIROCCO (NCT01928771); CALIMA (NCT01914757); ZONDA (NCT02075255).Widely accepted definitions for disease remission are already established for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and cancer, among others. Two separate expert groups recently collaborated to discuss clinical remission/super-response to treatment in patients with severe asthma. Both groups developed separate, yet similar ways to determine whether a patient should be considered “in remission.” In this study, we used the results from three previous trials (SIROCCO, CALIMA, and ZONDA) that were conducted to assess a therapy called benralizumab in patients with severe asthma to identify patients who met some or all of the criteria for disease remission in severe asthma. These criteria included zero asthma exacerbations; zero oral steroid (OCS) use; asthma control score; and improvement in lung function. Across all three trials, about three quarters of the patients achieved two or more remission components and about half achieved three or more remission components after 6 months of treatment; furthermore, these rates were generally similar to the numbers of patients who achieved two or more components and three or more components of remission after 12 months of treatment. Overall, 15–23% of patients achieved clinical remission in 6 months, and approximately 15% achieved remission within 12 months. The results show that biologic therapies like benralizumab help improve the symptoms of severe asthma and allow patients to achieve disease remission.

Introduction Faced with the challenges of climate change, countries are seeking to decarbonise their economies. A greater understanding of what comprises the carbon footprint of care in healthcare systems will identify potential strategies for reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In respiratory care, the focus has been on preventer inhalers, thereby omitting contributions from other aspects such as healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and reliever inhaler use. The healthCARe-Based envirONmental cost of treatment (CARBON) programme aims to provide a broader understanding of the carbon footprint associated with respiratory care. Methods CARBON will quantify the carbon footprint of medications and HCRU among approximately 2.5 million patients with respiratory diseases from seven ongoing studies spanning more than 40 countries. Across studies, to obtain the carbon footprint of all inhaled, oral, and injectable medications, SimaPro life cycle assessment software modelling resource and energy consumption data, in addition to Ecoinvent(R) data sets and certified published studies, will be used. The carbon footprint of HCRU in the United Kingdom will be estimated by applying the methodology and data obtained from the Sustainable Healthcare Coalition Care Pathway Guidance. Planned Outcomes In asthma, CARBON studies will quantify GHG emissions associated with well-controlled versus not well-controlled asthma, the contribution of short-acting beta(2)-agonist (SABA) reliever inhalers (and their potential overuse) to the carbon footprint of care, and how implementation of treatment guidelines can drive improved outcomes and footprint reduction. In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), CARBON studies will assess the impact of exacerbation history on GHG emissions associated with HCRU and SABA use in subsequent years and estimate the carbon footprint associated with all aspects of COPD care. Conclusion CARBON aims to show that the principle of evidence-led care focused on improvement of clinical outcomes has the potential to benefit patients and the environment.

Summary Background No consensus exists on how to reduce oral corticosteroids after the initiation of biologics in severe asthma. The PONENTE trial evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a rapid, individualised steroid-reduction algorithm, including adrenal insufficiency monitoring, after benralizumab initiation. Methods This multicentre, open-label, single-arm study was done at 138 clinical asthma treatment centres across 17 countries. We enrolled adult patients (age ≥18 years) with severe, eosinophilic asthma (blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells per μL at enrolment or ≥300 cells per μL in the previous year) requiring maintenance oral corticosteroids for at least 3 months preceding enrolment. Patients received benralizumab 30 mg (subcutaneous injection) every 4 weeks for three doses, then every 8 weeks thereafter. The oral corticosteroid reduction phase began at week 4 with daily oral corticosteroid dosages reduced by 1–5 mg every 1–4 weeks depending on the starting dosage, asthma control, and adrenal function status. Adrenal function was assessed with an early morning serum cortisol measurement, followed by adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation when required, once patients achieved a daily oral corticosteroid dosage of 5 mg/day for 4 weeks. Repeat cortisol measurements were taken for patients with evidence of adrenal insufficiency at first testing. Asthma control was assessed with the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) weekly throughout the induction and oral corticosteroid reduction phases. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients eliminating daily oral corticosteroids, sustained for at least 4 weeks, and the percentage achieving elimination or a daily prednisone or prednisolone dosage of 5 mg or less, for at least 4 weeks, if the reason for no further reduction was adrenal insufficiency. Safety and efficacy analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of benralizumab and were descriptive. We present results after the oral corticosteroid reduction phase; a maintenance phase is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03557307 . Findings Between April 1, 2018, and Sept 5, 2020, of 705 patients assessed for eligibility, 598 were recruited and all received at least one dose of benralizumab. Overall, 376 (62·88%, 95% CI 58·86–66·76) of 598 patients eliminated oral corticosteroids and 490 (81·94%, 78·62–84·94) of 598 eliminated use or achieved a dosage of 5 mg or less if the reason for stopping the reduction was adrenal insufficiency. Subgroup analysis showed that dosage reductions were achieved irrespective of baseline eosinophil count, baseline oral corticosteroid dosage, or oral corticosteroid treatment duration. Adrenal insufficiency was detected in 321 (60%) of 533 patients at first assessment and in 205 (38%) of 533 patients 2–3 months later. The safety profile was consistent with previous experience. Most patients (448 [75%] of 598) had no asthma exacerbations during the oral corticosteroid reduction phase with an annualised exacerbation rate of 0·63. Of 598 patients, 38 (6%) experienced a total of 46 exacerbations resulting in emergency department or urgent care visits or hospitalisations. Interpretation Despite a high prevalence of adrenal insufficiency, most patients with eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab achieved elimination of oral corticosteroids or maximal possible reduction using a personalised dosage-reduction algorithm. Funding AstraZeneca.

Summary Background Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the activity of thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), an epithelial cell-derived cytokine. In phase 2b and 3 studies, tezepelumab significantly reduced exacerbations versus placebo in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, irrespective of baseline levels of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers. We investigated the mechanism of action of tezepelumab by assessing its effects on airway inflammatory cells, airway remodelling, and airway hyperresponsiveness. Methods CASCADE was an exploratory, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 study done in 27 medical centres in Canada, Denmark, Germany, the UK, and the USA. Adults aged 18–75 years with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for a planned 28 weeks, extended to up to 52 weeks if COVID-19-related disruption delayed participants' end-of-treatment assessments. Randomisation was balanced and stratified by blood eosinophil count. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to the end of treatment in the number of airway submucosal inflammatory cells in bronchoscopic biopsy samples. Eosinophils, neutrophils, CD3+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, tryptase+ mast cells, and chymase+ mast cells were evaluated separately. This endpoint was also assessed in subgroups according to baseline type 2 inflammatory biomarker levels, including blood eosinophil count. Airway remodelling was assessed via the secondary endpoints of change from baseline in reticular basement membrane thickness and epithelial integrity (proportions of denuded, damaged, and intact epithelium). Exploratory outcomes included airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol. All participants who completed at least 20 weeks of study treatment, had an end-of-treatment visit up to 8 weeks after the last dose of study drug, and had evaluable baseline and end-of-treatment bronchoscopies were included in the primary efficacy analysis. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03688074. Findings Between Nov 2, 2018, and Nov 16, 2020, 250 patients were enrolled, 116 of whom were randomly assigned (59 to tezepelumab, 57 to placebo). 48 in the tezepelumab group and 51 in the placebo group completed the study and were assessed for the primary endpoint. Treatment with tezepelumab resulted in a nominally significantly greater reduction from baseline to the end of treatment in airway submucosal eosinophils versus placebo (ratio of geometric least-squares means 0·15 [95% CI 0·05–0·41]; nominal p 0·10). In assessment of secondary endpoints, there were no significant differences between treatment groups in reticular basement membrane thickness and epithelial integrity. In an exploratory analysis, the reduction in airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol was significantly greater with tezepelumab versus placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline in interpolated or extrapolated provoking dose of mannitol required to induce ≥15% reduction in FEV1 from baseline: tezepelumab 197·4 mg [95% CI 107·9 to 286·9]; placebo 58·6 mg [−30·1 to 147·33]; difference 138·8 [14·2 to 263·3], nominal p=0·030). Adverse events were reported in 53 (90%) patients in the tezepelumab group and 51 (90%) patients in the placebo group, and there were no safety findings of concern. Interpretation The improvements in asthma clinical outcomes observed in previous studies with tezepelumab are probably driven, at least in part, by reductions in eosinophilic airway inflammation, as shown here by reduced airway eosinophil counts regardless of baseline blood eosinophil count. Tezepelumab also reduced airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol, indicating that TSLP blockade might have additional benefits in asthma beyond reducing type 2 airway inflammation. Funding AstraZeneca and Amgen.

Background Phenotypic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma are not well characterized in global, real-life severe asthma cohorts. Research Question What is the prevalence of eosinophilic and noneosinophilic phenotypes in the population with severe asthma, and can these phenotypes be differentiated by clinical and biomarker variables? Study Design and Methods This was an historical registry study. Adult patients with severe asthma and available blood eosinophil count (BEC) from 11 countries enrolled in the International Severe Asthma Registry (January 1, 2015-September 30, 2019) were categorized according to likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using a predefined gradient eosinophilic algorithm based on highest BEC, long-term oral corticosteroid use, elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide, nasal polyps, and adult-onset asthma. Demographic and clinical characteristics were defined at baseline (ie, 1 year before or closest to date of BEC). Results One thousand seven hundred sixteen patients with prospective data were included; 83.8% were identified as most likely (grade 3), 8.3% were identified as likely (grade 2), and 6.3% identified as least likely (grade 1) to have an eosinophilic phenotype, and 1.6% of patients showed a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Eosinophilic phenotype patients (ie, grades 2 or 3) showed later asthma onset (29.1 years vs 6.7 years; P Interpretation According to this multicomponent, consensus-driven, and evidence-based eosinophil gradient algorithm (using variables readily accessible in real life), the severe asthma eosinophilic phenotype was more prevalent than previously identified and was phenotypically distinct. This pragmatic gradient algorithm uses variables readily accessible in primary and specialist care, addressing inherent issues of phenotype heterogeneity and phenotype instability. Identification of treatable traits across phenotypes should improve therapeutic precision.

Allergic asthma is the most common phenotype among patients with severe asthma. In the phase 3 NAVIGATOR study (NCT03347279), tezepelumab significantly reduced the annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) versus placebo in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. This exploratory analysis evaluated the efficacy of tezepelumab in NAVIGATOR participants with evidence of severe allergic asthma.Patients (12-80 years old) receiving medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and ≥ 1 additional controller medication, with or without oral corticosteroids, were randomized to tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks in NAVIGATOR. In this analysis, the AAER, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEVOf 1059 patients who received treatment in NAVIGATOR, 680 (64%) had perennial aeroallergen sensitivity and 318 (30%) had confirmed symptomatic allergy; 379 (36%) and 359 (34%) patients were OMA-US- and OMA-EU-eligible, respectively. Tezepelumab reduced the AAER over 52 weeks versus placebo by 58% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47-67) to 68% (95% CI: 55-77) across these subgroups. Among omalizumab-eligible patients, AAERs were reduced in patients across baseline blood eosinophil counts and FeNO levels. Tezepelumab improved FEVTezepelumab was efficacious in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with evidence of allergic inflammation, defined by multiple clinically relevant definitions. These findings further support the benefits of tezepelumab in a broad population of patients with severe asthma, including those with severe allergic asthma.

Background 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 severe adult asthma patients eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods This was a prospective cohort study that included adult severe asthma patients 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. Results 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

IntroductionOral corticosteroids (OCS) for asthma are associated with increased risks of developing adverse outcomes (adverse outcomes); no previous study has focused exclusively on intermittent OCS use.MethodsThis historical (2008–2019) UK cohort study using primary care medical records from two anonymised, real-life databases (OPCRD and CPRD) included patients aged≥4 years with asthma receiving only intermittent OCS. Patients were indexed on their first recorded intermittent OCS prescription for asthma and categorised by OCS prescribing patterns: one-off (single), less frequent (≥90 day gap) and frequent (2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions using a multivariable Cox-proportional hazard model.FindingsOf 476 167 eligible patients, 41.7%, 26.8% and 31.6% had one-off, less frequent and frequent intermittent OCS prescribing patterns, respectively. Risk of any AO increased with increasingly frequent patterns of intermittent OCS versus non-OCS (HR; 95% CI: one-off 1.19 (1.18 to 1.20), less frequent 1.35 (1.34 to 1.36), frequent 1.42 (1.42 to 1.43)), and was consistent across age, GINA treatment step and ICS and SABA subgroups. The highest risks of individual OCS-related adverse outcomes with increasingly frequent OCS were for pneumonia and sleep apnoea.ConclusionA considerable proportion of patients with asthma receiving intermittent OCS experienced a frequent prescribing pattern. Increasingly frequent OCS prescribing patterns were associated with higher risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Mitigation strategies are needed to minimise intermittent OCS prescription in primary care.

Asthma exacerbations are major contributors to disease morbidity in patients of all ages. To develop strategies that reduce the disease burden from exacerbations, it is helpful to review current concepts about the risk factors for asthma attacks and current approaches for prevention and treatment. Multiple factors contribute as risks and to the development of asthma exacerbations, including allergic and infectious processes. Viral respiratory infections, primarily from rhinoviruses, are the dominant exacerbating cause for most asthma patients. Allergic sensitization and allergen exposure contribute directly and enhance susceptibility for respiratory viral infections. Respiratory viruses infect airway epithelium to promote underlying type 2 inflammation with eosinophils, the predominant cellular component of increased inflammation. Deficiencies of antiviral interferon responses and generation have been identified that increase susceptibility to viral infections in asthma. Exacerbation treatment focuses on reducing airflow obstruction and suppressing inflammation, followed by improving long-term asthma control. Increasing concern exists regarding the side effects associated with frequent systemic corticosteroid use. A major advance has been the selective use of biologics to prevent exacerbations, primarily in patients with existing type 2 inflammation. Future research to prevent exacerbations is being directed toward antiviral activity and a more encompassing regulation of underlying airway inflammation.

Coexisting chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps (CRS-NPs) substantially increases the disease burden of asthma. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, has established efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in asthma and CRS with NP.To evaluate long-term dupilumab efficacy in TRAVERSE (NCT02134028) patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe (QUEST) or oral corticosteroid (OCS)-dependent (VENTURE) asthma with or without coexisting CRS-NP.In TRAVERSE, 317 of 1530 (21%) QUEST and 61 of 187 (48%) VENTURE patients had self-reported CRS-NP; they received subcutaneous 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks up to 96 weeks. Patients were categorized by parent study treatment group (placebo/dupilumab, dupilumab/dupilumab). End points included annualized asthma exacerbation rates and mean change from parent study baseline in prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second, Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 score, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and OCS dose.Patients with coexisting CRS-NP had higher OCS dose and a history of more exacerbations. Concluding TRAVERSE, exacerbation rates decreased from 2.39 to 0.32 and 2.32 to 0.35 in dupilumab/dupilumab and 2.36 to 0.41 and 2.36 to 0.45 in placebo/dupilumab by week 96 from QUEST and VENTURE baselines, respectively. Non-CRS-NP results were similar. Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 score, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score during parent studies were maintained in TRAVERSE; placebo/dupilumab patients achieved similar improvements to dupilumab/dupilumab by week 48. By week 96, 71% and 39% of OCS-dependent patients with CRS-NP and 83% and 47% without CRS-NP treated with dupilumab/dupilumab and placebo/dupilumab, respectively, stopped OCS.Long-term dupilumab efficacy was maintained in patients with asthma with or without self-reported coexisting CRS-NP, including OCS-sparing effects observed in OCS-dependent severe asthma.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02528214, NCT02414854, and NCT02134028.

Molecular antibodies (mAb) targeting inflammatory mediators are effective in T2-high asthma. The recent approval of Tezepelumab presents a novel mAb therapeutic option for those with T2-low asthma.We discuss a number of clinical problems pertinent to severe asthma that are less responsive to current therapies, such as persistent airflow obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness. We discuss selected investigational approaches, including a number of candidate therapies under investigation in two adaptive platform trials currently in progress, with particular reference to this unmet need, as well as their potential in phenotypes such as neutrophilic asthma and obese asthma, which may or may not overlap with a T2-high phenotype.The application of discrete targeting approaches to T2-low molecular phenotypes, including those phenotypes in which inflammation may not arise within the airway, has yielded variable results to date. Endotypes associated with T2-low asthma are likely to be diverse but await validation. Investigational therapeutic approaches must, likewise, be diverse if the goal of remission is to become attainable for all those living with asthma.

several biological treatments have become available for management of severe asthma. There is a significant overlap in the indication of these treatments with lack of consensus on the first-line biologic choice and switching practice in event of treatment failure.to evaluate outcomes of biologic treatments through analysis of the UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR), and survey of the UK severe asthma specialists' opinion.patients registered in the UKSAR database and treated with biologics for severe asthma in the period between January 2014 and August 2021, were studied to explore biologic treatments practice. This was complemented by survey of opinion of severe asthma specialists.a total of 2,490 patients from 10 severe asthma centres were included in the study (mean age 51.3 years, 61.1% female, mean BMI 30.9kg/mWe observed significant variation and divergence in the prescribing practices of biologics in severe asthma that necessitates further research and standardisation.

International audience; BACKGROUND: Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin, an epithelial-cell–derived cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma. The efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma require further assessment.METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients (12 to 80 years of age) were randomly assigned to receive tezepelumab (210 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of asthma exacerbations over a period of 52 weeks. This end point was also assessed in patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of less than 300 cells per microliter. Secondary end points included the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–6 (ACQ-6; range, 0 [no impairment] to 6 [maximum impairment]), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ; range, 1 [maximum impairment] to 7 [no impairment]), and Asthma Symptom Diary (ASD; range, 0 [no symptoms] to 4 [worst possible symptoms]).RESULTS: Overall, 1061 patients underwent randomization (529 were assigned to receive tezepelumab and 532 to receive placebo). The annualized rate of asthma exacerbations was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.07) with tezepelumab and 2.10 (95% CI, 1.84 to 2.39) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.53; P

Funder: AstraZeneca; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004325, Secondary adrenal insufficiency (AI) occurs as the result of any process that disrupts normal hypothalamic and/or anterior pituitary function and causes a decrease in the secretion of steroid hormones from the adrenal cortex. The most common cause of secondary AI is exogenous corticosteroid therapy administered at supraphysiologic dosages for ≥ 1 month. AI caused by oral corticosteroids (OCS) is not well‐recognized or commonly diagnosed but is often associated with reduced well‐being and can be life‐threatening in the event of an adrenal crisis. Corticosteroid use is common in respiratory diseases, and asthma is a representative condition that illustrates the potential challenges and opportunities related to corticosteroid‐sparing therapies. For individuals with severe asthma (approximately 5%–10% of all cases), reduction or elimination of maintenance OCS without loss of control can now be accomplished with biologic therapies targeting inflammatory mediators. However, the optimal strategy to ensure early identification and treatment of AI and safe OCS withdrawal in routine clinical practice remains to be defined. Many studies with biologics have involved short evaluation periods and small sample sizes; in addition, cautious approaches to OCS tapering in studies with a placebo arm, coupled with inconsistent monitoring for AI, have contributed to the lack of clarity. If the goal is to greatly reduce and, where possible, eliminate long‐term OCS use in severe asthma through the increasing adoption of biologic treatments, there is an urgent need for clinical trials that address both the speed of OCS withdrawal and how to monitor for AI.

Asthma treatments have evolved from bronchodilators to interventions directed toward the regulation of airway inflammation. From these advances has come greater disease control and reduced morbidity. The addition of biologics directed toward specific pathways of inflammation has advanced the efficacy of asthma control. With these treatment advances, a renewed interest in achieving a remission in asthma has arisen. Although asthma remission has been considered to reflect a "cure," new evaluations of this concept have proposed criteria for remission while on treatment. These criteria reflect a high level of disease control including absence of symptoms, optimization and stabilization of lung function, and absence of the use of systemic corticosteroids and have been proposed to indicate a remission of disease activity. Given the added efficacy found with biologics in asthma treatment for patients with moderate to severe disease, the question has arisen as to whether the use of biologics meets criteria for remission and may this change a component of underlying disease and risks. Biologics are highly effective in reducing exacerbations, diminishing symptoms, and improving lung function in well-defined asthma populations. At present, however, biologics achieve some, but in most cases not all criteria for a remission on treatment. However, the concept of promoting treatment efforts to achieve disease remission in asthma is important, potentially achievable, and merits consideration for future guideline-directed care approaches.

Background: Asthma treatment guidelines recommend increasing corticosteroid dose to control symptoms and reduce exacerbations. This approach is potentially flawed because symptomatic asthma can occur without corticosteroid responsive type-2 (T2)-driven eosinophilic inflammation, and inappropriately high-dose corticosteroid treatment might have little therapeutic benefit with increased risk of side-effects. We compared a biomarker strategy to adjust corticosteroid dose using a composite score of T2 biomarkers (fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FENO], blood eosinophils, and serum periostin) with a standardised symptom–risk-based algorithm (control). Methods: We did a single-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in adults (18–80 years of age) with severe asthma (at treatment steps 4 and 5 of the Global Initiative for Asthma) and FENO of less than 45 parts per billion at12 specialist severe asthma centres across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to either the biomarker strategy group or the control group by an online electronic case-report form, in blocks of ten, stratified by asthma control and use of rescue systemic steroids in the previous year. Patients were masked to study group allocation throughout the entirety of the study. Patients attended clinic every 8 weeks, with treatment adjustment following automated treatment-group-specific algorithms: those in the biomarker strategy group received a default advisory to maintain treatment and those in the control group had their treatment adjusted according to the steps indicated by the trial algorithm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with corticosteroid dose reduction at week 48, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary outcomes were inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose at the end of the study; cumulative dose of ICS during the study; proportion of patients on maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS) at study end; rate of protocol-defined severe exacerbations per patient year; time to first severe exacerbation; number of hospital admissions for asthma; changes in lung function, Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 score, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and T2 biomarkers from baseline to week 48; and whether patients declined to progress to OCS. A secondary aim of our study was to establish the proportion of patients with severe asthma in whom T2 biomarkers remained low when corticosteroid therapy was decreased to a minimum ICS dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02717689 and has been completed. Findings: Patients were recruited from Jan 8, 2016, to July 12, 2018. Of 549 patients assessed, 301 patients were included in the ITT population and were randomly assigned to the biomarker strategy group (n=240) or to the control group(n=61). 28·4% of patients in the biomarker strategy group were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 compared with 18·5% of patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·71 [95% CI 0·80–3·63]; p=0·17). In the per-protocol (PP) population (n=121), a significantly greater proportion of patients were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 in the biomarker strategy group (30·7% of patients) compared with the control group (5·0% of patients; aOR 11·48 [95% CI 1·35–97·83]; p=0·026). Patient choice to not follow treatment advice was the principle reason for loss to PP analysis. There was no difference in secondary outcomes between study groups and no loss of asthma control among patients in the biomarker strategy group who reduced their corticosteroid dose. Interpretation: Biomarker-based corticosteroid adjustment did not result in a greater proportion of patients reducing corticosteroid dose versus control. Understanding the reasons for patients not following treatment advice in both treatment strategies is an important area for future research. The prevalence of T2 biomarker-low severe asthma was low.

BackgroundThe UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) is the world’s largest national severe asthma registry collecting standardised data on referrals to UK specialist services. Novel biologic therapies have transformed the management of type 2(T2)-high severe asthma but have highlighted unmet need in patients with persisting symptoms despite suppression of T2-cytokine pathways with corticosteroids.MethodsDemographic, clinical and treatments characteristics for patients meeting European Respiratory Society / American Thoracic Society severe asthma criteria were examined for 2225 patients attending 15 specialist severe asthma centres. We assessed differences in biomarker low patients (fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ResultsAge (mean 49.6 (14.3) y), age of asthma onset (24.2 (19.1) y) and female predominance (62.4%) were consistent with prior severe asthma cohorts. Poor symptom control (Asthma Control Questionnaire-6: 2.9 (1.4)) with high exacerbation rate (4 (IQR: 2, 7)) were common despite high-dose treatment (51.7% on maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS)). 68.9% were prescribed biologic therapies including mepolizumab (50.3%), benralizumab (26.1%) and omalizumab (22.6%). T2-low patients had higher body mass index (32.1 vs 30.2, pConclusionsThe UKSAR describes the characteristics of a large cohort of asthmatics referred to UK specialist severe asthma services. It offers the prospect of providing novel insights across a range of research areas and highlights substantial unmet need with poor asthma control, impaired lung function and high exacerbation rates. T2-high phenotypes predominate with significant differences apparent from T2-low patients. However, T2-low patients frequently have prior blood eosinophilia consistent with possible excessive corticosteroid exposure.

Asthma is a common disease affecting 350 million people worldwide, which is characterized by airways inflammation and hyperreactivity. Historically diagnosis and treatment have been mainly based on symptoms, which have the potential to result in misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Nitric oxide (NO) is exhaled in human breath and is a marker of airways inflammation. Levels of NO are increased in the exhaled breath of patients with type 2 asthma and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) provides an objective biomarker of airway inflammation. FeNO testing is an accessible, noninvasive, and easy-to-use test. Cut-off values have been established by the American Thoracic Society (ATS), the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) but vary between guidance. FeNO levels have been shown to be predictive of blood and sputum eosinophil levels but should not be used in isolation and current guidance emphasizes the importance of incorporating clinical symptoms and testing when utilizing FeNO results. The inclusion of FeNO testing can increase diagnostic accuracy of asthma, while high levels in asthmatic patients can help predict response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and suppression of levels with ICS to monitor adherence. FeNO levels are also a predictor of asthma risk with increased exacerbation rates and accelerated decline in lung function associated with high levels as well as having an emerging role in predicting response to some biologic therapies in severe asthma. FeNO testing is cost-effective and has been shown, when combined with clinical assessment, to improve asthma management.

Regional and/or national severe asthma registries provide valuable country-specific information. However, they are often limited in scope within the broader definitions of severe asthma, have insufficient statistical power to answer many research questions, lack intraoperability to share lessons learned, and have fundamental differences in data collected, making cross comparisons difficult. What is missing is a worldwide registry which brings all severe asthma data together in a cohesive way, under a single umbrella, based on standardized data collection protocols, permitting data to be shared seamlessly. The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) is the first global adult severe asthma registry. It is a joint initiative where national registries (both newly created and preexisting) retain ownership of their own data but open their borders and share data with ISAR for ethically approved research purposes. Its strength comes from collection of patient-level, anonymous, longitudinal, real-life, standardized, high-quality data (using a core set of variables) from countries across the world, combined with organizational structure, database experience, inclusivity/openness, and clinical, academic, and database expertise. This gives ISAR sufficient statistical power to answer important research questions, sufficient data standardization to compare across countries and regions, and the structure and expertise necessary to ensure its continuance and the scientific integrity and clinical applicability of its research. ISAR offers a unique opportunity to implement existing knowledge, generate new knowledge, and identify the unknown, therefore promoting new research. The aim of this commentary is to fully describe how ISAR may improve our understanding of severe asthma.

Background Clinical characteristics of the international population with severe asthma are unknown. Intercountry comparisons are hindered by variable data collection within regional and national severe asthma registries. We aimed to describe demographic and clinical characteristics of patients treated in severe asthma services in the United States, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Methods The International Severe Asthma Registry retrospectively and prospectively collected data in patients with severe asthma (≥ 18 years old), receiving Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 5 treatment or with severe asthma remaining uncontrolled at GINA Step 4. Baseline demographic and clinical data were collected from the United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Italy, and the Severe Asthma Web-based Database registry (including Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand) from December 2014 to December 2017. Results We included 4,990 patients. Mean (SD) age was 55.0 (15.9) years, and mean (SD) age at asthma onset was 30.7 (17.7) years. Patients were predominantly female (59.3%) and white (72.6%), had never smoked (60.5%), and were overweight or obese (70.4%); 34.9% were at GINA Step 5; and 57.2% had poorly controlled disease. A total of 51.1% of patients were receiving regular intermittent oral corticosteroids, and 25.4% were receiving biologics (72.6% for those at GINA Step 5). Mean (SD) exacerbation rate was 1.7 (2.7) per year. Intercountry variation was observed in clinical characteristics, prescribed treatments, and biomarker profiles. Conclusions Using a common data set and definitions, this study describes severe asthma characteristics of a large patient cohort included in multiple severe asthma registries and identifies country differences. Whether these are related to underlying epidemiological factors, environmental factors, phenotypes, asthma management systems, treatment access, and/or cultural factors requires further study.

International audience; Systemic corticosteroid use to manage uncontrolled asthma and its associated healthcare burden may account for important health-related adverse effects. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the real-world extent and burden of systemic corticosteroid use in asthma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify English-language articles published in 2010–2017, using search terms for asthma with keywords for oral corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids. Observational studies, prescription database analyses, economic analyses, and surveys on oral/systemic corticosteroid use in children (>5 yr old), adolescents (12–17 yr old), and adults with asthma were included. We identified and reviewed 387 full-text articles, and our review included data from 139 studies. The included studies were conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia. Overall, oral/systemic corticosteroids were commonly used for asthma management and were more frequently used in patients with severe asthma than in those with milder disease. Long-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use was, in general, less frequent than short-term use. Compared with no use, long-term and repeated short-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use were associated with an increased risk of acute and chronic adverse events, even when doses were comparatively low. Greater oral/systemic corticosteroid exposure was also associated with increased costs and healthcare resource use. This review provides a comprehensive overview of oral/systemic corticosteroid use and associated adverse events for patients with all degrees of asthma severity and exposure duration. We report that oral/systemic corticosteroid use is prevalent in asthma management, and the risks of acute and chronic complications increase with the cumulative oral corticosteroid dosage.Keywords: asthma; oral corticosteroids; sev