INITIAL - An observational study of disease severity in newly diagnosed asthma patients and initial response following 12 weeks' treatment

Lung Function and Asthma Clinical Control in N-ERD Patients, Three-Year Follow-Up in the Context of Real-World Evidence

Purpose

To describe the lung function and clinical control of asthma in patients with N-ERD during three years of medical follow-up using GINA guidelines.

Methods

We evaluated 75 N-ERD and 68 asthma patients (AG). Clinical control, lung function, and asthma treatment were evaluated according to GINA-2014. We compared all variables at baseline and one, two, and three years after treatment.

Results

At baseline, the N-ERD group had better basal lung function (LF) than the AG group (p<0.01), and the AG group used higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids than the N-ERD group (52.4% vs 30.5%, p=0.01) and short-term oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (52.4% vs 30.5%, p<0.01). Instead, N-ERD patients needed more use of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) (29.3% vs 5.9%, p<0.01). This group had better clinical control than the AG group (62.1% vs 34.1%, p<0.01). During the medical follow-up, the LF of the N-ERD group remained at normal values; however, these parameters improved in AG from one year (p<0.01). Likewise, there was a diminished use of high doses of ICS (52.4% vs 33%, p<0.05) and short-term OCS (67.6% vs 20.6%, p<0.01) in asthma patients. However, N-ERD patients still needed more use of LTRAs (p<0.02) during the study. In this context, one-third of N-ERD patients had to use a combination of two drugs to maintain this control. From the second year on, clinical control of asthma was similar in both groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion

According to GINA guidelines, only one-third of patients with N-ERD can gradually achieve adequate lung function and good asthma control with a high ICS dosage. Only a very small portion of patients will require the continued use of a second medication as an LTRA to keep their asthma under control.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy with Alutard SQ improves allergic inflammation in house-dust mites-induced allergic asthma rats through inactivation of the HMGB1/TLR4/NF-κB pathway

Background

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only available safe, effective, and long-term treatment for allergic airway diseases, including allergic asthma. However, the potential molecular mechanism of AIT in ameliorating airway inflammation remains unknown.

Methods

Rats were sensitized and challenged with house dust mite (HDM) and administered with Alutard SQ or/and high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) inhibitor, ammonium glycyrrhizinate (AMGZ) or HMGB1 lentivirus. The total and differential cell counts in rat bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were detected. Hematoxylin and eosin staining (H&E) was performed to examine the pathological lesions in lung tissues. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was performed to assess the expression of inflammatory factors in lungs, BALF, and serum. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) was used to measure the levels of inflammatory factors in the lungs. Western blot assay was used to evaluate the expression of HMGB1, Τoll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), and nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) in the lungs.

Results

Consequently, AIT with Alutard SQ attenuated airway inflammation, the total and differential cells in BALF, and expression of Th (T helper)2 related cytokines and transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1). The regimen also upregulated Th-1-related cytokine expression by inhibiting the HMGB1/TLR4/NF-κB pathway in HDM-induced asthmatic rats. Furthermore, AMGZ, a HMGB1 antagonist, amplified the functions of AIT with Alutard SQ in the asthma rat model. Nevertheless, overexpression of HMGB1 reversed the functions of AIT with Alutard SQ in the asthma rat model.

Conclusions

In summary, this work demonstrates the role of AIT with Alutard SQ, which inhibits the HMGB1/TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway in allergic asthma management.

The Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in Controller-Naïve and Symptomatic Adults with Asthma: A Preliminary Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

The efficacy and safety of first-line triple and dual therapy remain unclear because the stepwise strategy is a worldwide standard in controller-naïve asthma. A preliminary retrospective cohort study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line triple and dual therapy for managing controller-naïve and symptomatic adult patients with asthma.

Patients and Methods

Patients with asthma who received first-line single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) or dual therapy (SIDT) for at least 8 weeks were selected between December 1, 2020, and May 31, 2021, in Fujiki Medical and Surgical Clinic, Miyazaki, Japan. Data on daytime and nighttime visual analog scale (VAS) scores, lung function tests, fractional exhaled nitrogen oxide (F_ENO), and adverse events were compared between SITT and SIDT pre- and post-treatment.

Results

The SITT significantly improved the nighttime, but not daytime, VAS scores better than the SIDT 2 weeks post-treatment (P = 0.0026), whereas SITT and SIDT significantly improved daytime and nighttime VAS scores after treatment compared to baseline. Both therapies also significantly improved lung functions and F_ENO post-treatment. The proportion of patients achieving complete control in the nighttime VAS scores after SITT was significantly higher than that four (P = 0.0186) and 8 weeks (P = 0.0061) after SIDT. Only patients with SITT experienced dry mouth.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that first-line SITT and SIDT were effective, and SITT improved disease control faster than SIDT in controller-naïve and symptomatic adult patients with asthma. The first-line SITT may contribute to faster and better control levels in symptomatic patients with asthma.

Post hoc analysis of initial treatments and control status in the INITIAL study: an observational study of newly diagnosed patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

The 12-week, multicentre, observational INITIAL study (NCT02143739) assessed asthma severity in newly diagnosed Chinese patients.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of medication combinations prescribed per routine clinical practice at baseline, and the impact on control levels evaluated using 2012 vs 2018 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 4491 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, intermittent, mild, moderate and severe asthma was reported in 3.9, 12.0, 22.6 and 61.6% of patients, respectively. Most patients (90.2%) were prescribed inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂ agonist (ICS/LABA). ICS/LABA plus ≥1 additional medication(s) was prescribed to 66.7% of patients, with leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA, 54.7%) being the most common additional medication. Distribution of ICS/LABA vs ICS/LABA+LTRA was comparable in patients with intermittent (3.2% vs 3.0%), mild (11.5% vs 9.7%), moderate (21.2% vs 19.9%) and severe asthma (64.1% vs 67.4%). Control levels among patients using ICS/LABA+LTRA vs ICS/LABA were comparable using GINA 2012 and lower using GINA 2018 criteria. The proportion of patients using ICS/LABA+LTRA vs ICS/LABA with intermittent, mild, moderate and severe asthma controlled at Week 12 (using GINA 2012) were 78.1% vs 80.0, 86.5% vs 85.8, 78.5% vs 71.3, and 59.6% vs 61.8%, respectively. Using GINA 2018 criteria proportions were 86.8% vs 95.9, 86.1% vs 93.2, 82.1% vs 85.3, and 71.9% vs 77.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Asthma control was not improved by adding LTRA to ICS/LABA and may have been unnecessary for some newly diagnosed patients. These findings were irrespective of the GINA criteria (2012 vs 2018) used and baseline severity.