Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Anti-interleukin-13 and anti-interleukin-4 agents versus placebo, anti-interleukin-5 or anti-immunoglobulin-E agents, for people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Targeting the immunoglobulin E pathway and the interleukin-5 pathway with specific monoclonal antibodies directed against the cytokines or their receptors is effective in patients with severe asthma. However, there are patients who have suboptimal responses to these biologics. Since interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, signalling through the interleukin-4 receptor, have multiple effects on the biology of asthma, therapies targeting interleukin-4 and -13 (both individually and combined) have been developed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4 agents, compared with placebo, anti-immunoglobulin E agents, or anti-interleukin-5 agents, for the treatment of children, adolescents, or adults with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the Group and through searches of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The search was carried out on the 16 October 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials that compared anti-interleukin-13 or -4 agents (or agents that target both interleukin-13 and interleukin-4) with placebo in adolescents and adults (aged 16 years or older) or children (younger than 16 years), with a diagnosis of asthma; participants could receive their usual short- or long-acting medications (e.g. inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta adrenoceptor agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists) provided that they were not part of the randomised treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 41 RCTs. Of these, 29 studies contributed data to the quantitative analyses, randomly assigning 10,604 people with asthma to receive an anti-interleukin-13 (intervention) or anti-interleukin-4 agent (intervention), or placebo (comparator). No relevant studies were identified where the comparator was an anti-immunoglobulin agent or an anti-interleukin-5 agent. Studies had a duration of between 2 and 52 (median 16) weeks. The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 22 to 55 years. Only five studies permitted enrolment of children and adolescents, accounting for less than 5% of the total participants contributing data to the present review. The majority of participants had moderate or severe uncontrolled asthma. Concomitant ICS use was permitted or required in the majority (21 of 29) of the included studies. The use of maintenance systemic corticosteroids was not permitted in 19 studies and was permitted or required in five studies (information not reported in five studies). Regarding the most commonly assessed anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents, four studies evaluated dupilumab (300 mg once every week (Q1W), 200 mg once every two weeks (Q2W), 300 mg Q2W, 200 mg once every four weeks (Q4W), 300 mg Q4W, each administered by subcutaneous (SC) injection); eight studies evaluated lebrikizumab (37.5 mg Q4W, 125 mg Q4W, 250 mg Q4W each administered by SC injection); and nine studies (3259 participants) evaluated tralokinumab (75 mg Q1W, 150 mg Q1W, 300 mg Q1W, 150 mg Q2W, 300 mg Q2W, 600 mg Q2W, 300 mg Q4W, each administered by SC injection; 1/5/10 mg/kg administered by intravenous (IV) injection); all anti-interleukin-13 or-4 agents were compared with placebo. The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unclear (insufficient detail provided); nine studies were considered to be at high risk for attrition bias and three studies were considered to be at high risk for reporting bias. The following results relate to the primary outcomes. The rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or emergency department (ED) visit was probably lower in participants receiving tralokinumab versus placebo (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.98; moderate-certainty evidence; data available for tralokinumab (anti-interleukin-13) only). In participants receiving an anti-interleukin-13/-4 agent, the mean improvement versus placebo in adjusted asthma quality of life questionnaire score was 0.18 units (95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; high-certainty evidence); however, this finding was deemed not to be a clinically relevant improvement. There was likely little or no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who reported all-cause serious adverse events (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of secondary outcomes, there may be little or no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who experienced exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32; low-certainty evidence). Anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents probably improve asthma control based on asthma control questionnaire score (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.24 to -0.14); however, the magnitude of this result was deemed not to be a clinically relevant improvement. The proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event was greater in those receiving anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents compared with those receiving placebo (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30; high-certainty evidence); the most commonly reported adverse events in participants treated with anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache and injection site reaction. The pooled results for the exploratory outcome, the rate of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS) or hospitalisation or emergency department visit, may be lower in participants receiving anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo (rate ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77; low-certainty evidence). Results were generally consistent across subgroups for different classes of agent (anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4), durations of study and severity of disease. Subgroup analysis based on category of T helper 2 (TH2) inflammation suggested greater efficacy in patients with higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers (blood eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide and serum periostin).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the totality of the evidence, compared with placebo, anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents are probably associated with a reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or ED visit, at the cost of increased adverse events, in patients with asthma. No clinically relevant improvements in health-related quality of life or asthma control were identified. Therefore, anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4 agents may be appropriate for adults with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma who have not responded to other treatments. These conclusions are generally supported by moderate or high-certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

SOURCE: a phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in reducing oral corticosteroid use in adults with oral corticosteroid dependent asthma

BACKGROUND

Many patients with severe asthma continue to experience asthma symptoms and exacerbations despite standard-of-care treatment. A substantial proportion of these patients require long-term treatment with oral corticosteroids (OCS), often at high doses, which are associated with considerable multiorgan adverse effects, including metabolic disorders, osteoporosis and adrenal insufficiency. Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the activity of the epithelial cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin. In the PATHWAY phase 2b study (NCT02054130), tezepelumab significantly reduced exacerbations by up to 71% in adults with severe, uncontrolled asthma. Several ongoing phase 3 trials (SOURCE, NCT03406078; NAVIGATOR, NCT03347279; DESTINATION, NCT03706079) are assessing the efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. Here, we describe the design and objectives of SOURCE, a phase 3 OCS-sparing study.

METHODS

SOURCE is an ongoing phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effect of tezepelumab 210 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks on OCS dose reduction in adults with OCS-dependent asthma. The study comprises a 2-week screening and enrolment period, followed by an OCS optimization phase of up to 8 weeks and a 48-week treatment period, which consists of a 4-week induction phase, followed by a 36-week OCS reduction phase and an 8-week maintenance phase. The primary objective is to assess the effect of tezepelumab compared with placebo in reducing the prescribed OCS maintenance dose. The key secondary objective is to assess the effect of tezepelumab on asthma exacerbation rates. Other secondary objectives include the proportion of patients with a reduction in OCS dose (100% or 50% reduction or those receiving < 5 mg) and the effect of tezepelumab on lung function and patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SOURCE is evaluating the OCS-sparing potential of tezepelumab in patients with OCS-dependent asthma. SOURCE also aims to demonstrate that treatment with tezepelumab in patients with severe asthma is associated with reductions in exacerbation rates and improvements in lung function, asthma control and health-related quality of life, while reducing OCS dose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03406078 ( ClinicalTrials.gov ). Registered 23 January 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03406078.

Tralokinumab did not demonstrate oral corticosteroid-sparing effects in severe asthma

Long-term oral corticosteroid (OCS) use in patients with severe asthma is associated with significant adverse effects.This 40-week, randomised, double-blind trial evaluated the OCS-sparing potential of tralokinumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma requiring maintenance OCS treatment plus inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β₂-agonists. Overall, 140 patients were randomised to tralokinumab 300 mg or placebo (n=70 in each group) administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The primary end-point was percentage change from baseline in average OCS dose at week 40, while maintaining asthma control. Secondary end-points included proportion of patients with a prescribed maintenance OCS dose of ≤5 mg, those with a ≥50% reduction in prescribed maintenance OCS dose and asthma exacerbation rate. Safety was also assessed.At week 40, the percentage reduction from baseline in the final daily average OCS dose was not significantly different between tralokinumab and placebo (37.62% versus 29.85%; p=0.271). There were no significant between-treatment differences for any secondary end-point. Overall, reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar for the tralokinumab and placebo groups. Although a greater proportion of tralokinumab-treated patients reported upper respiratory tract infections (35.7% versus 14.3%), there were no reported cases of pneumonia.Overall, tralokinumab did not demonstrate an OCS-sparing effect in patients with severe asthma.

Tralokinumab for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma: the ATMOSPHERE clinical development program

Tralokinumab, a fully human IgG₄ monoclonal antibody, specifically neutralizes IL-13. The ATMOSPHERE clinical development program comprised four randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials and an open-label study that aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tralokinumab for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma. The two pivotal trials (STRATOS 1 and STRATOS 2; NCT02161757 and NCT02194699) evaluated the efficacy and safety of tralokinumab, with STRATOS 1 identifying a subgroup most likely to demonstrate enhanced response to treatment. Further trials have assessed the ability of tralokinumab to reduce oral corticosteroid use (TROPOS; NCT02281357) and determined its mechanistic effects (MESOS; NCT02449473). An open-label study in Japanese individuals (NCT02902809) assessed the long-term safety and tolerability of tralokinumab in this population.

Development and analytical performance of a new ARCHITECT automated dipeptidyl peptidase-4 immunoassay

Background

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) may be a suitable biomarker to identify people with severe asthma who have greater activation of the interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathway and may therefore benefit from IL-13-targeted treatments. We report the analytical performance of an Investigational Use Only immunoassay and provide data on the biological range of DPP-4 concentrations.

Methods

We assessed assay performance, utilising analyses of precision, linearity and sensitivity; interference from common endogenous assay interferents, and from asthma and anti-diabetic medications, were also assessed. The assay was used to measure the range of serum DPP-4 concentrations in healthy volunteers and subjects with diabetes and severe, uncontrolled asthma.

Results

The total precision of DPP-4 concentration measurement (determined using percentage coefficient of variation) was ≤5% over 20 days. Dilution analysis yielded linear results from 30 to 1305 ng/mL; the limit of quantitation was 19.2 ng/mL. No notable endogenous or drug interferences were observed at the expected therapeutic concentration. Median DPP-4 concentrations in healthy volunteers and subjects with asthma or Type 1 diabetes were assessed, with concentrations remaining similar in subjects with diabetes and asthma across different demographics.

Conclusion

These analyses indicate that the ARCHITECT DPP-4 Immunoassay is a reliable and robust method for measuring serum DPP-4 concentration.

Anti-IL5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This review is the first update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) have been developed, with recent studies suggesting that they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function. These are being incorporated into asthma guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related qualify of life (HRQoL) measures, and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies on 6000 participants met the inclusion criteria. Four used mepolizumab, four used reslizumab, and five used benralizumab. One study in benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. Eight included children over 12 years but these results were not reported separately. We deemed the risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data being of robust methodology. We considered the quality of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, with the exception of intravenous mepolizumab because this is not currently a licensed delivery route.All of the anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard of care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) 1.5 or more). Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, but no data were available for non-eosinophilic participants, and mepolizumab or reslizumab.We saw modest improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. However these did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference for ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), with St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) only assessed in two studies. The improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab, the only intervention for which data were available in this subset, was not statistically significant, but the test for subgroup difference was negative.All anti-IL-5 treatments produced a small but statistically significant improvement in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.11 L.There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment, and indeed a reduction in favour of mepolizumab that could be due to a beneficial effect on asthma-related serious adverse events. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (36/1599 benralizumab versus 9/998 placebo).Mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab all markedly reduced blood eosinophils, but benralizumab resulted in almost complete depletion, whereas a small number remained with mepolizumab and reslizumab. The implications for efficacy and/or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall our study supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard of care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. There were no safety concerns regarding mepolizumab or reslizumab, and no excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation.Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), and comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in people eligible for both, to anti-immunoglobulin E. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Targeted Therapy for Older Patients with Uncontrolled Severe Asthma: Current and Future Prospects

Severe asthma in the elderly places a high burden on affected individuals and society. Emerging therapies target specific phenotypes of the asthma disease spectrum, and can be beneficial for older asthmatics, albeit their response might be altered due to age-related characteristics. Paradoxically, these characteristics are often ground for exclusion from clinical trials. The question thus arises how the senior asthmatic population can successfully enter the era of targeted therapy. Therefore, we highlight characteristics of this population relevant to effective treatment, and review the evidence for targeted therapy in elderly patients. For targeted therapy it is important to account for aging, as this affects the distribution of phenotypes (e.g. late-onset asthma, non-eosinophilic asthma) and may alter biomarkers and drug metabolism. Elderly asthmatics suffer from age-related comorbidities and subsequent polypharmacy. A systematic search into targeted asthma therapy yielded no randomized clinical trials dedicated to older asthmatics. Post hoc analyses of the anti-immunoglobulin E agent omalizumab indicate similar efficacy in both younger and older adults. Conference abstracts on anti-interleukin-5 and anti-interleukin-13 therapy suggest even more pronounced effects of targeted treatments in late-onset disease and in asthmatic patients 65 years or older, but full reports are lacking. For non-eosinophilic asthma in the elderly, there is not yet high-level evidence for targeted therapy, but macrolides may offer a viable option. In conclusion, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the effect of older age on the safety and efficacy of targeted asthma therapy. Further investigations in the elderly are needed, with special emphasis on both late-onset asthma and therapeutics for non-eosinophilic asthma.

Development of a new ARCHITECT automated periostin immunoassay

BACKGROUND

Periostin is being investigated as a potential biomarker for T-helper-2 (Th2)-driven asthma or eosinophilic inflammation and may help to identify patients more likely to benefit from interleukin-13-targeted treatments. We report the development and analytic performance of the investigational use only ARCHITECT Periostin Immunoassay, a new automated assay developed to detect serum periostin concentrations.

METHODS

We assessed assay performance in terms of precision, sensitivity, linearity, interference from classical immunoassay interferents and representatives of common asthma medications, specimen handling, and isoform reactivity. The assay was also used to assess the biological variability of serum periostin concentrations in samples from healthy volunteers and from subjects with uncontrolled asthma (the intended use population).

RESULTS

The percentage CVs for 5-day total precision, assessed using two instruments, was <6% across 2 controls and one serum-based panel. Limit of quantitation was 4ng/mL (dilution adjusted concentration), suiting the needs for this application. Dilution analysis yielded linear results and no endogenous sample or drug interferences were observed. All known periostin isoforms expressed in the mature human lung were detected by the assay.

CONCLUSION

Our studies provide support that the ARCHITECT Periostin Immunoassay is a reliable and robust test for measuring serum periostin concentrations.