Analysis of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adult patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry

Efficacy of Tezepelumab in Patients with Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma Across Multiple Clinically Relevant Subgroups in the NAVIGATOR Study

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with severe asthma continue to experience symptoms and exacerbations despite treatment with standard-of-care therapy. In the phase 3 NAVIGATOR study, tezepelumab significantly reduced exacerbations over 52 weeks compared with placebo in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. This analysis assessed the efficacy of tezepelumab in reducing asthma exacerbations in various clinically relevant subgroups of patients in NAVIGATOR.

METHODS

NAVIGATOR was a phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Participants (12-80 years old) with severe, uncontrolled asthma were randomized 1:1 to receive tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Pre-specified and post hoc analyses were performed to evaluate the annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) over 52 weeks in clinically relevant subgroups of patients defined by baseline patient characteristics, medical history, exacerbation triggers, medication eligibility and medication use before and during the study.

RESULTS

Tezepelumab reduced the AAER over 52 weeks compared with placebo across a wide range of patient subgroups assessed. Reductions in exacerbations were similar across subgroups defined by baseline patient characteristics, ranging from 48% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21, 65) to 60% (95% CI: 44, 71) in subgroups analysed by sex, smoking history and body mass index. Among the asthma-related comorbidity subgroups investigated, patients with aspirin or NSAID sensitivity had the greatest reductions in AAER with tezepelumab compared with placebo (83%; 95% CI: 66, 91). In patients eligible to receive dupilumab, tezepelumab reduced exacerbations compared with placebo by 64% (95% CI: 54, 71). Reductions in the AAER with tezepelumab compared with placebo were also observed irrespective of exacerbation trigger category and the number of asthma controller medications patients were receiving at baseline.

CONCLUSION

These findings further support the benefits of tezepelumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and can help to inform healthcare providers' treatment decisions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279).

Remission in asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current concepts of remission in asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Until 2023, asthma guidelines have been promoting the concept of disease control, recommending the step-wise addition of drugs until the best possible disease control is achieved. With the advent of highly effective, anti-inflammatory disease-modifying antiasthmatic drugs (DMAADs), treatment goals of asthma have changed. Several national guidelines have now announced remission as a general treatment goal in asthma. Currently, all guidelines agree that asthma remission is defined by the presence of at least three characteristics over a period of at least one 1 year: absence of exacerbations, no systemic corticosteroid use for the treatment of asthma and minimal asthma-related symptoms. In the future, a generally accepted, evidence-based and easy-to-use definition of remission will be needed for daily clinical practice. It is clear, however, that precise phenotyping (including measurement of biomarkers) is an essential prerequisite to achieve clinical remission in each individual patient.

SUMMARY

Remission has been included as the treatment goal in asthma in several national guidelines, reflecting the paradigm shift in asthma, from short-term symptom control to long-term symptom prevention. An international consensus on the criteria for asthma remission is expected in the near future.

Difficult-To-Treat and Severe Asthma: Can Real-World Studies On Effectiveness of Biological Treatments Change the Lives of Patients?

Many different phenotypes that characterize severe asthma are supported by intricate pathomechanisms called endotypes. The latter are driven by molecular interactions, mediated by intercellular networks. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, real-world studies have confirmed the positive effects of currently available antibodies directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, as well as the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). The best way to treat severe asthma should be chosen based on the peculiar phenotypic and endotypic traits of each patient. This will lead to relevant improvements in both clinical and functional outcomes. In particular, biological therapies can change the lives of asthma patients with a strong impact on quality of life. Unfortunately, patients with severe non-type-2 asthma, who continue to have pertinent unmet needs, are not receiving satisfactory advances within the context of biological treatments. It is also hopeful that in the next future new therapeutic strategies will be specifically implemented for these people, perhaps offering them the opportunity to improve their current, mostly inadequate asthma management.

Association Between T2-related Comorbidities and Effectiveness of Biologics in Severe Asthma

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV1% predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV1% predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.