Frank C. Albers

Mepolizumab for Eosinophilic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an eosinophilic phenotype may benefit from treatment with mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against interleukin‐5. METHODS We performed two phase 3, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, parallel‐group trials comparing mepolizumab (100 mg in METREX, 100 or 300 mg in METREO) with placebo, given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks for 52 weeks in patients with COPD who had a history of moderate or severe exacerbations while taking inhaled glucocorticoid‐based triple maintenance therapy. In METREX, unselected patients in the modified intention‐to‐treat population with an eosinophilic phenotype were stratified according to blood eosinophil count (≥150 per cubic millimeter at screening or ≥300 per cubic millimeter during the previous year). In METREO, all patients had a blood eosinophil count of at least 150 per cubic millimeter at screening or at least 300 per cubic millimeter during the previous year. The primary end point was the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS In METREX, the mean annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the modified intention‐to‐treat population with an eosinophilic phenotype (462 patients) was 1.40 per year in the mepolizumab group versus 1.71 per year in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.98; adjusted P=0.04); no significant between‐group differences were found in the overall modified intention‐to‐treat population (836 patients) (rate ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.12; adjusted P>0.99). In METREO, the mean annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 1.19 per year in the 100‐mg mepolizumab group, 1.27 per year in the 300‐mg mepolizumab group, and 1.49 per year in the placebo group. The rate ratios for exacerbations in the 100‐mg and 300‐mg mepolizumab groups versus the placebo group were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98; adjusted P=0.07) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; adjusted P=0.14), respectively. A greater effect of mepolizumab, as compared with placebo, on the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was found among patients with higher blood eosinophil counts at screening. The safety profile of mepolizumab was similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS Mepolizumab at a dose of 100 mg was associated with a lower annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations than placebo among patients with COPD and an eosinophilic phenotype. This finding suggests that eosinophilic airway inflammation contributes to COPD exacerbations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METREX and METREO ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02105948 and NCT02105961.)

Efficacy of mepolizumab add-on therapy on health-related quality of life and markers of asthma control in severe eosinophilic asthma (MUSCA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND Mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody approved as add-on therapy to standard of care for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, has been shown in previous studies to reduce exacerbations and dependency on oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. We aimed to further assess mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma by examining its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial (MUSCA) in 146 hospitals or research centres in 19 countries worldwide. Eligible participants were patients aged 12 years or older with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of at least two exacerbations requiring treatment in the previous 12 months before screening despite regular use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus other controller medicines. Exclusion criteria included current smokers or former smokers with a history of at least ten pack-years. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) by country to receive a subcutaneous injection of either mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 24 weeks (the final dose was given at week 20). We did the randomisation using an interactive voice response system and a centralised, computer-generated, permuted-block design of block size six. The two treatments were identical in appearance and administered in a masked manner; patients, investigators, other site staff and the entire study team including those assessing outcomes data were also masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at week 24 in the modified intention-to-treat (modified ITT) population (analysed according to their randomly assigned treatment). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of trial medication (analysed according to the actual treatment received). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02281318. FINDINGS We recruited patients between Dec 11, 2014, and Nov 20, 2015, and the study was undertaken between Dec 11, 2014, and June 10, 2016. The modified ITT population comprised 274 patients assigned to mepolizumab 100 mg and 277 assigned to placebo. Mepolizumab versus placebo showed significant improvements at week 24 from baseline in SGRQ total score (least squares mean [SE] change from baseline -15·6 (1·0) vs -7·9 (1·0), a treatment difference of -7·7 (95% CI -10·5 to -4·9; p<0·0001). No deaths occurred during the study. 192 (70%) of 273 patients who received mepolizumab and 207 (74%) of 278 who received placebo reported at least one on-treatment adverse event, the most common of which were headache (in 45 [16%] given mepolizumab vs 59 [21%] given placebo) and nasopharyngitis (in 31 [11%] given mepolizumab vs 46 [17%] given placebo). 15 (5%) and 22 (8%) patients had an on-treatment serious adverse event in the mepolizumab and placebo groups, respectively; the most common was asthma in both groups (in three [1%] given mepolizumab vs nine [3%] given placebo). INTERPRETATION Mepolizumab was associated with significant improvements in HRQOL in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. These results add to and support the use of mepolizumab as a favourable add-on treatment option to standard of care in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Biomarkers for severe eosinophilic asthma

&NA; The last decade has seen the approval of several new biologics for the treatment of severe asthma‐targeting specific endotypes and phenotypes. This review will examine how evidence generated from the mepolizumab clinical development program showed that blood eosinophil counts, rather than sputum or tissue eosinophil counts, evolved as a pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarker for the efficacy of treatment with mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. Based on the available evidence and combined with clinical judgement, a baseline blood eosinophil threshold of 150 cells/&mgr;L or greater or a historical blood eosinophil threshold of 300 cells/&mgr;L or greater will allow selection of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who are most likely to achieve clinically significant reductions in the rate of exacerbations with mepolizumab treatment.

Dose-Response Relationship Between Long-Term Systemic Corticosteroid Use and Related Complications in Patients with Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND Systemic corticosteroids are a leading cause of drug-related complications, yet little has been done to quantify the dose-response relationship between systemic corticosteroid exposure and complications in patients with severe asthma. OBJECTIVES To (a) evaluate the risk of developing systemic corticosteroid-related complications by corticosteroid exposure in severe asthma and (b) quantify the associated health care resource utilization and costs. METHODS This is a retrospective study using administrative claims data from a large commercial database between 2003 and 2014. Multivariate generalized estimating equation models were used to compare corticosteroid-related complications in patients continuously exposed to at least 5 mg of prednisone or equivalent for ≥ 6 months with a 1:1 ratio of propensity score-matched patients with asthma who did not use corticosteroids. RESULTS A total of 12,697 corticosteroid users and as many matched nonusers were identified. The odds of developing associated complications increased significantly in a dose-dependent manner with systemic corticosteroid exposure: odds ratios were 2.50, 2.95, and 3.32 (P values <0.05) for low (defined as < 5 mg/day), medium (≥ 5-10 mg/day), and high (>10 mg/day) exposure, respectively, relative to no exposure. Health care resource utilization increased significantly with levels of systemic corticosteroid exposure. Hence, incidence rate ratios for inpatient visits with low, medium, and high exposure relative to none were estimated to be 1.86, 2.40, and 3.37, respectively (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS A significant dose-response relationship was found between the long-term use of systemic corticosteroids and the risk of developing systemic corticosteroid-related complications in patients with severe asthma, resulting in increased burden and costs on the health care system that intensified with systemic corticosteroid exposure. DISCLOSURES Funding for this study was provided by GlaxoSmithKline, Study number H0-15-15930, to Analysis Group for the conduct of this study. Lefebvre, Duh, and Gozalo are employees of Analysis Group, a contract research organization that has received research grants from GlaxoSmithKline. Robitaille was employed by Analysis Group at the time of this study. Yancey, Forshag, Lin, and Albers are employees of GlaxoSmithKline and own company stock. Dalal and Ortega were employed by GlaxoSmithKline at the time of this study. Lefebvre had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Additionally, all listed authors meet the criteria for authorship set forth by the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors. Study concept and design were contributed by Dalal, Duh, Albers, Yancey, Ortega, Forshag, and Lefebvre. Data acquisition was by Dalal, Gozalo, Robitaille, Forshag, and Lefebvre and was analyzed and interpreted by Dalal, Gozalo, Robitaille, Albers, Yancey, Ortega, Forshag, and Lefebvre. The manuscript was drafted and approved by Dalal, Duh, Gozalo, Robitaille, Albers, Yancey, Ortega, Forshag, Lin, and Lefebvre.

Biologic treatment eligibility for real-world patients with severe asthma: The IDEAL study

ABSTRACT Objectives: Severe asthma comprises several distinct phenotypes. Consequently, patients with severe asthma can be eligible for more than one biologic treatment targeting Th2 inflammation, such as anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-immunoglobulin (Ig) E. The objective of this study was to describe treatment eligibility and overlap in treatment eligibility for mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), omalizumab (anti-IgE) and reslizumab (anti-IL-5) in patients with severe asthma, who were recruited from clinical practice. Methods: This cross-sectional, single-visit, observational study in six countries enrolled patients with severe asthma (defined by American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines). Assessable patients were analysed as a total cohort and a sub-cohort, who were not currently receiving omalizumab. Treatment eligibility was defined according to the local prescribing information or protocol-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Patients currently receiving omalizumab were automatically categorised as omalizumab-eligible. Results: The total cohort comprised 670 patients who met the analysis criteria, of whom 20% were eligible for mepolizumab, 31–41% were eligible for omalizumab (depending on eligibility criteria used), and 5% were eligible for reslizumab. In patients not currently receiving omalizumab (n = 502), proportions eligible for each biologic were similar (mepolizumab: 20%, reslizumab 6%) or lower (omalizumab 7–21%) than those for the total cohort. Overlap in treatment eligibility varied; in mepolizumab-eligible patients not currently receiving omalizumab (n = 101), 27–37% were omalizumab-eligible and 18% were reslizumab-eligible. Conclusions: Treatment eligibility for mepolizumab and omalizumab was higher than that for reslizumab. Although there was some overlap in treatment eligibility, the patient groups eligible for treatment with anti-IL-5 or anti-IgE therapies were often distinct, emphasising the different phenotypes and endotypes in severe asthma.

Burden of systemic glucocorticoid-related complications in severe asthma

Abstract Objectives: Although systemic glucocorticoids (SGCs) are efficacious, their chronic use is associated with a range of complications. Yet limited data are available about the risks following chronic use in patients with severe asthma, who are at risk of long-term SGC-related complications. This study was carried out to investigate the risks of developing SGC-related complications, and to quantify the associated healthcare resource utilization and costs for patients with severe asthma in the United States. Methods: This was a longitudinal, open-cohort, observational study. Medicaid claims data (1997–2013) for patients ≥12 years old with ≥2 asthma diagnoses were used. A total of 26,987 SGC non-users were identified for inclusion in the study, alongside 3628 SGC users with ≥6 months’ continuous SGC use. Results: Multivariate generalized estimating equation models were used to estimate the adjusted risk of developing SGC-related complications, and to quantify the associated healthcare resource utilization and costs. This analysis compared SGC users with SGC non-users, and found that SGC users had an increased likelihood of developing complications. A significant dose–response relationship was demonstrated between chronic SGC use and risk of developing any complications (odds ratios for low, medium, and high SGC exposure were 2.03 [p = .0511], 2.85 [p < .0001], and 3.64 [p < .0001], respectively, vs. SGC non-users). The increased likelihood of SGC-related complications translated into estimated annual healthcare costs for SGC users of

Qualitative evaluation of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with severe asthma

2712 to

Anti–IL-5 treatments in patients with severe asthma by blood eosinophil thresholds: Indirect treatment comparison

8560 above those of SGC non-users. A key limitation of this study is the disparity in age between the SGC users and the SGC non-users; however, age was included as a confounding factor in the analysis. Conclusions: These findings confirm the risk associated with chronic use of SGCs, irrespective of dose level, and highlight the need for new SGC-sparing treatment strategies for patients with severe asthma.

P14 Therapeutic benefit of mepolizumab in the national institute of health and care excellence (nice) sub-population– a post-hoc meta-analysis of phase iib/iii trials

PURPOSE Content validity is the extent to which a patient-reported outcome measure evaluates the concepts most relevant to a patients condition and treatment. The St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) has been validated in a range of respiratory conditions. This study evaluated the content validity of the SGRQ in patients with severe asthma. METHODS A qualitative study, guided by a protocol, which included concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing of the SGRQ, was conducted in patients aged ≥18 years with history of severe asthma and blood eosinophil counts of ≥150/μL (past month) or ≥300/μL (past 12 months). Patients were recruited until saturation for concept elicitation was achieved (i.e. no additional concepts identified). Concepts identified by the patients were then mapped to the SGRQ. RESULTS 18 patient interviews provided concept saturation. Concept elicitation confirmed that the SGRQ includes the commonly reported asthma symptoms and their impact on daily life. In total, 89-100% of patients routinely experienced cough, nighttime awakenings, shortness of breath, chest tightness, sleep difficulty, phlegm/mucus, and wheezing. Patients reported asthma impacting daily and physical activities, mood and sleep. Cognitive interviewing confirmed that patients understood the instructions, items and response options in the SGRQ. Nearly half of the concepts in the SGRQ were endorsed by ≥12 patients; of the 17 items with scoring weights ≥85, 11 were mentioned by ≥12 patients. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the SGRQ is a relevant, comprehensive and content-valid instrument to assess health status in patients with severe asthma.

Reappraisal of the clinical effect of mepolizumab – Authors' reply

Background: Three anti–IL‐5 pathway–directed therapies are approved for use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA); however, no head‐to‐head comparison data are available. Objective: We sought to compare the efficacy of licensed doses of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab in patients with SEA, according to baseline blood eosinophil counts. Methods: This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used data from a Cochrane review and independent searches. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials in patients aged 12 years or greater with SEA. End points included annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations and change from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire score and FEV1. An ITC was performed in patients with Asthma Control Questionnaire scores of 1.5 or greater and stratified by baseline blood eosinophil count. Results: Eleven studies were included. All treatments significantly reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations and improved asthma control versus placebo in all blood eosinophil count subgroups. Mepolizumab reduced clinically significant exacerbations by 34% to 45% versus benralizumab across subgroups (rate ratio ≥400 cells/&mgr;L: 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35‐0.87]; ≥300 cells/&mgr;L: 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37‐0.99]; and ≥150 cells/&mgr;L: 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49‐0.89]; all P < .05) and by 45% versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/&mgr;L or greater subgroup (rate ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36‐0.85]; P = .007). Asthma control was significantly improved with mepolizumab versus benralizumab (all subgroups: P < .05) and versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/&mgr;L or greater subgroup (P = .004). Benralizumab significantly improved lung function versus reslizumab in the 400 cells/&mgr;L or greater subgroup (P = .025). Conclusions: This ITC of the licensed doses suggests that mepolizumab was associated with significantly greater improvements in clinically significant exacerbations and asthma control compared with reslizumab or benralizumab in patients with similar blood eosinophil counts.