Biomarkers to Predict Response to Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists in Adolescents and Adults with Mild Persistent Asthma

Baseline Characteristics and ICS/LAMA/LABA Response in Asthma: Analyses From the CAPTAIN Study

BACKGROUND

Findings from CAPTAIN (NCT02924688) suggest that treatment response to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) differs according to baseline type 2 inflammation markers in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Understanding how other patient physiologic and clinical characteristics affect response to inhaled therapies may guide physicians toward a personalized approach for asthma management.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate, using CAPTAIN data, the predictive value of key demographic and baseline physiologic variables in patients with asthma (lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age, age at asthma onset) on response to addition of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist UMEC to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination FF/VI, or doubling the FF dose.

METHODS

Prespecified and post hoc analyses of CAPTAIN data were performed using categorical and continuous variables of key baseline characteristics to understand their influence on treatment outcomes (lung function [trough FEV1], annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, and asthma control [Asthma Control Questionnaire]) following addition of UMEC to FF/VI or doubling the FF dose in FF/VI or FF/UMEC/VI.

RESULTS

Adding UMEC to FF/VI led to greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus doubling the FF dose across all baseline characteristics assessed. Doubling the FF dose was generally associated with numerically greater reductions in the annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations compared with adding UMEC, independent of baseline characteristics. Adding UMEC and/or doubling the FF dose generally led to improvements in Asthma Control Questionnaire scores irrespective of baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike previous findings with type 2 biomarkers, lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age and age at asthma onset do not appear to predict response to inhaled therapy.

Association of Sputum Eosinophilia With Easily Measured Type-2 Inflammatory Biomarkers in Untreated Mild Persistent Asthma

BACKGROUND

A multicenter clinical trial in patients with mild persistent asthma indicated that response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is limited to those with sputum eosinophilia. However, testing for sputum eosinophilia is impractical in most clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

We examined associations between sputum eosinophilia and type 2 inflammatory biomarkers in untreated mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

Induced sputum, blood eosinophil count (BEC), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and serum periostin were obtained twice during the 6-week run-in period in a clinical trial that enrolled patients 12 years and older with symptomatic, mild persistent asthma without controller therapy. The optimal threshold for each biomarker was based on achieving 80% or greater sensitivity. Performance of biomarkers (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC], range 0.0-1.0) in predicting sputum eosinophilia 2% or greater was determined; AUCs of 0.8 to 0.9 and more than 0.9 define excellent and outstanding discrimination, respectively.

RESULTS

Of 564 participants, 27% were sputum eosinophilic, 83% were atopic, 70% had BEC of 200/uL or higher or FeNO of 25 ppb or greater; 64% of participants without sputum eosinophilia had elevated BEC or FeNO. The AUCs for BEC, FeNO, and both together in predicting sputum eosinophilia were all below the threshold for excellent discrimination (AUC 0.75, 0.78, and 0.79, respectively). Periostin (in adults) had poor discrimination (AUC 0.59; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

In untreated mild persistent asthma, there is substantial discordance between sputum eosinophilia, BEC, and FeNO. Until prospective trials test the ability of alternative biomarkers to predict ICS response, BEC or FeNO phenotyping may be an option to consider ICS through a shared decision-making process with consideration of other clinical features.

Mild asthma: Lessons learned and remaining questions

Patients living with mild disease represent the largest proportion of asthma patients. There are significant challenges in proposing a definition that would best describe these patients, while also accurately identifying at-risk individuals. Current literature suggests considerable inflammatory and clinical heterogeneity within this group. Research has shown that these patients are at risk of poor control, exacerbations, lung function decline, and death. Despite conflicting data on its prevalence, eosinophilic inflammation appears to be a predictor of poorer outcomes in mild asthma. There is an immediate need to better understand phenotypic clusters in mild asthma. It is also important to understand factors that influence disease progression and remission, as it is evident that both vary in mild asthma. Guided by robust literature that supports inhaled corticosteroid-based strategies over short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliant regimens, the management of these patients has evolved considerably. Unfortunately, SABA use remains high in clinical practice despite strong advocacy from the Global Initiative for Asthma. Future mild asthma research should explore the role of biomarkers, develop prediction tools based on composite risk scores, and explore targeted therapies at least for at-risk individuals.

Questions in Mild Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Patients with mild asthma are believed to represent the majority of patients with asthma. Disease-associated risks such as exacerbations, lung function decline, and death have been understudied in this patient population. There have been no prior efforts from major societies to describe research needs in mild asthma. Methods: A multidisciplinary, diverse group of 24 international experts reviewed the literature, identified knowledge gaps, and provided research recommendations relating to mild asthma definition, pathophysiology, and management across all age groups. Research needs were also investigated from a patient perspective, generated in conjunction with patients with asthma, caregivers, and stakeholders. Of note, this project is not a systematic review of the evidence and is not a clinical practice guideline. Results: There are multiple unmet needs in research on mild asthma driven by large knowledge gaps in all areas. Specifically, there is an immediate need for a robust mild asthma definition and an improved understanding of its pathophysiology and management strategies across all age groups. Future research must factor in patient perspectives. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in severe asthma, there remain innumerable research areas requiring urgent attention in mild asthma. An important first step is to determine a better definition that will accurately reflect the heterogeneity and risks noted in this group. This research statement highlights the topics of research that are of the highest priority. Furthermore, it firmly advocates the need for engagement with patient groups and for more support for research in this field.

Phenotyping, Precision Medicine, and Asthma

The traditional one-size-fits all approach based on asthma severity is archaic. Asthma is a heterogenous syndrome rather than a single disease entity. Studies evaluating observable characteristics called phenotypes have elucidated this heterogeneity. Asthma clusters demonstrate overlapping features, are generally stable over time and are reproducible. What the identification of clusters may have failed to do, is move the needle of precision medicine meaningfully in asthma. This may be related to the lack of a straightforward and clinically meaningful way to apply what we have learned about asthma clusters. Clusters are based on both clinical factors and biomarkers. The use of biomarkers is slowly gaining popularity, but phenotyping based on biomarkers is generally greatly underutilized even in subspecialty care. Biomarkers are more often used to evaluate type 2 (T2) inflammatory signatures and eosinophils (sputum and blood), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and serum total and specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E reliably characterize the underlying inflammatory pathways. Biomarkers perform variably and clinicians must be familiar with their advantages and disadvantages to accurately apply them in clinical care. In addition, it is increasingly clear that clinical features are critical in understanding not only phenotypic characterization but in predicting response to therapy and future risk of poor outcomes. Strategies for asthma management will need to leverage our knowledge of biomarkers and clinical features to create composite scores and risk prediction tools that are clinically applicable. Despite significant progress, many questions remain, and more work is required to accurately identify non-T2 biomarkers. Adoption of phenotyping and more consistent use of biomarkers is needed, and we should continue to encourage this incorporation into practice.

Allergic Asthma in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Allergic asthma is the most common asthma phenotype and is characterized by IgE sensitization to airborne allergens and subsequent typical asthmatic symptoms after exposure. A form of type 2 (T2) airway inflammation underlies allergic asthma. It usually arises in childhood and is accompanied by multimorbidity presenting with the occurrence of other atopic diseases, such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis. Diagnosis of the allergic endotype is based on in vivo (skin prick tests) and/or in vitro (allergen-specific IgE levels, component-resolved diagnosis (CRD)) documentation of allergic sensitization. Biomarkers identifying patients with allergic asthma include total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and serum eosinophil counts. The treatment of allergic asthma is a complex procedure and requires a patient-tailored approach. Besides environmental control involving allergen avoidance measurements and cornerstone pharmacological interventions based on inhaled drugs, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) and biologics are now at the forefront when it comes to personalized management of asthma. The current review aims to shed light on the distinct phenotype of allergic asthma, ranging over its current definition, clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and biomarkers, as well as its treatment options in the era of precision medicine.