Ian D. Pavord

Asthma exacerbations and sputum eosinophil counts: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Treatment decisions in asthma are based on assessments of symptoms and simple measures of lung function, which do not relate closely to underlying eosinophilic airway inflammation. We aimed to assess whether a management strategy that minimises eosinophilic inflammation reduces asthma exacerbations compared with a standard management strategy. METHODS We recruited 74 patients with moderate to severe asthma from hospital clinics and randomly allocated them to management either by standard British Thoracic Society asthma guidelines (BTS management group) or by normalisation of the induced sputum eosinophil count and reduction of symptoms (sputum management group). We assessed patients nine times over 12 months. The results were used to manage those in the sputum management group, but were not disclosed in the BTS group. The primary outcomes were the number of severe exacerbations and control of eosinophilic inflammation, measured by induced sputum eosinophil count. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS The sputum eosinophil count was 63% (95% CI 24-100) lower over 12 months in the sputum management group than in the BTS management group (p=0.002). Patients in the sputum management group had significantly fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did patients in the BTS management group (35 vs 109; p=0.01) and significantly fewer patients were admitted to hospital with asthma (one vs six, p=0.047). The average daily dose of inhaled or oral corticosteroids did not differ between the two groups. INTERPRETATION A treatment strategy directed at normalisation of the induced sputum eosinophil count reduces asthma exacerbations and admissions without the need for additional anti-inflammatory treatment.

Mepolizumab and exacerbations of refractory eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND Exacerbations of asthma are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and with considerable use of health care resources. Preventing exacerbations remains an important goal of therapy. There is evidence that eosinophilic inflammation of the airway is associated with the risk of exacerbations. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of 61 subjects who had refractory eosinophilic asthma and a history of recurrent severe exacerbations. Subjects received infusions of either mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody (29 subjects), or placebo (32) at monthly intervals for 1 year. The primary outcome measure was the number of severe exacerbations per subject during the 50-week treatment phase. Secondary outcomes included a change in asthma symptoms, scores on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ, in which scores range from 1 to 7, with lower values indicating more severe impairment and a change of 0.5 unit considered to be clinically important), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) after use of a bronchodilator, airway hyperresponsiveness, and eosinophil counts in the blood and sputum. RESULTS Mepolizumab was associated with significantly fewer severe exacerbations than placebo over the course of 50 weeks (2.0 vs. 3.4 mean exacerbations per subject; relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.92; P=0.02) and with a significant improvement in the score on the AQLQ (mean increase from baseline, 0.55 vs. 0.19; mean difference between groups, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.62; P=0.02). Mepolizumab significantly lowered eosinophil counts in the blood (P<0.001) and sputum (P=0.002). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to symptoms, FEV(1) after bronchodilator use, or airway hyperresponsiveness. The only serious adverse events reported were hospitalizations for acute severe asthma. CONCLUSIONS Mepolizumab therapy reduces exacerbations and improves AQLQ scores in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma. The results of our study suggest that eosinophils have a role as important effector cells in the pathogenesis of severe exacerbations of asthma in this patient population. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN75169762.)

Cluster Analysis and Clinical Asthma Phenotypes

RATIONALE Heterogeneity in asthma expression is multidimensional, including variability in clinical, physiologic, and pathologic parameters. Classification requires consideration of these disparate domains in a unified model. OBJECTIVES To explore the application of a multivariate mathematical technique, k-means cluster analysis, for identifying distinct phenotypic groups. METHODS We performed k-means cluster analysis in three independent asthma populations. Clusters of a population managed in primary care (n = 184) with predominantly mild to moderate disease, were compared with a refractory asthma population managed in secondary care (n = 187). We then compared differences in asthma outcomes (exacerbation frequency and change in corticosteroid dose at 12 mo) between clusters in a third population of 68 subjects with predominantly refractory asthma, clustered at entry into a randomized trial comparing a strategy of minimizing eosinophilic inflammation (inflammation-guided strategy) with standard care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Two clusters (early-onset atopic and obese, noneosinophilic) were common to both asthma populations. Two clusters characterized by marked discordance between symptom expression and eosinophilic airway inflammation (early-onset symptom predominant and late-onset inflammation predominant) were specific to refractory asthma. Inflammation-guided management was superior for both discordant subgroups leading to a reduction in exacerbation frequency in the inflammation-predominant cluster (3.53 [SD, 1.18] vs. 0.38 [SD, 0.13] exacerbation/patient/yr, P = 0.002) and a dose reduction of inhaled corticosteroid in the symptom-predominant cluster (mean difference, 1,829 mug beclomethasone equivalent/d [95% confidence interval, 307-3,349 mug]; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Cluster analysis offers a novel multidimensional approach for identifying asthma phenotypes that exhibit differences in clinical response to treatment algorithms.

An Official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement: Asthma Control and Exacerbations Standardizing Endpoints for Clinical Asthma Trials and Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND The assessment of asthma control is pivotal to the evaluation of treatment response in individuals and in clinical trials. Previously, asthma control, severity, and exacerbations were defined and assessed in many different ways. PURPOSE The Task Force was established to provide recommendations about standardization of outcomes relating to asthma control, severity, and exacerbations in clinical trials and clinical practice, for adults and children aged 6 years or older. METHODS A narrative literature review was conducted to evaluate the measurement properties and strengths/weaknesses of outcome measures relevant to asthma control and exacerbations. The review focused on diary variables, physiologic measurements, composite scores, biomarkers, quality of life questionnaires, and indirect measures. RESULTS The Task Force developed new definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance. In view of current knowledge about the multiple domains of asthma and asthma control, no single outcome measure can adequately assess asthma control. Its assessment in clinical trials and in clinical practice should include components relevant to both of the goals of asthma treatment, namely achievement of best possible clinical control and reduction of future risk of adverse outcomes. Recommendations are provided for the assessment of asthma control in clinical trials and clinical practice, both at baseline and in the assessment of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS The Task Force recommendations provide a basis for a multicomponent assessment of asthma by clinicians, researchers, and other relevant groups in the design, conduct, and evaluation of clinical trials, and in clinical practice.

British guideline on the management of asthma: A national clinical guideline

These guidelines have been replaced by British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. A national clinical guideline. Superseded By 2012 Revision Of 2008 Guideline: British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. Thorax 2008 May; 63(Suppl 4): 1–121.

Mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma (DREAM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Some patients with severe asthma have recurrent asthma exacerbations associated with eosinophilic airway inflammation. Early studies suggest that inhibition of eosinophilic airway inflammation with mepolizumab-a monoclonal antibody against interleukin 5-is associated with a reduced risk of exacerbations. We aimed to establish efficacy, safety, and patient characteristics associated with the response to mepolizumab. METHODS We undertook a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 81 centres in 13 countries between Nov 9, 2009, and Dec 5, 2011. Eligible patients were aged 12-74 years, had a history of recurrent severe asthma exacerbations, and had signs of eosinophilic inflammation. They were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1:1 ratio) to receive one of three doses of intravenous mepolizumab (75 mg, 250 mg, or 750 mg) or matched placebo (100 mL 0·9% NaCl) with a central telephone-based system and computer-generated randomly permuted block schedule stratified by whether treatment with oral corticosteroids was required. Patients received 13 infusions at 4-week intervals. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations, which were defined as validated episodes of acute asthma requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, admission, or a visit to an emergency department. Patients, clinicians, and data analysts were masked to treatment assignment. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01000506. FINDINGS 621 patients were randomised: 159 were assigned to placebo, 154 to 75 mg mepolizumab, 152 to 250 mg mepolizumab, and 156 to 750 mg mepolizumab. 776 exacerbations were deemed to be clinically significant. The rate of clinically significant exacerbations was 2·40 per patient per year in the placebo group, 1·24 in the 75 mg mepolizumab group (48% reduction, 95% CI 31-61%; p<0·0001), 1·46 in the 250 mg mepolizumab group (39% reduction, 19-54%; p=0·0005), and 1·15 in the 750 mg mepolizumab group (52% reduction, 36-64%; p<0·0001). Three patients died during the study, but the deaths were not deemed to be related to treatment. INTERPRETATION Mepolizumab is an effective and well tolerated treatment that reduces the risk of asthma exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Mepolizumab Treatment in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma

BACKGROUND Some patients with severe asthma have frequent exacerbations associated with persistent eosinophilic inflammation despite continuous treatment with high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids with or without oral glucocorticoids. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, we assigned 576 patients with recurrent asthma exacerbations and evidence of eosinophilic inflammation despite high doses of inhaled glucocorticoids to one of three study groups. Patients were assigned to receive mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5, which was administered as either a 75-mg intravenous dose or a 100-mg subcutaneous dose, or placebo every 4 weeks for 32 weeks. The primary outcome was the rate of exacerbations. Other outcomes included the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and scores on the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS The rate of exacerbations was reduced by 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 61) among patients receiving intravenous mepolizumab and by 53% (95% CI, 37 to 65) among those receiving subcutaneous mepolizumab, as compared with those receiving placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Exacerbations necessitating an emergency department visit or hospitalization were reduced by 32% in the group receiving intravenous mepolizumab and by 61% in the group receiving subcutaneous mepolizumab. At week 32, the mean increase from baseline in FEV1 was 100 ml greater in patients receiving intravenous mepolizumab than in those receiving placebo (P=0.02) and 98 ml greater in patients receiving subcutaneous mepolizumab than in those receiving placebo (P=0.03). The improvement from baseline in the SGRQ score was 6.4 points and 7.0 points greater in the intravenous and subcutaneous mepolizumab groups, respectively, than in the placebo group (minimal clinically important change, 4 points), and the improvement in the ACQ-5 score was 0.42 points and 0.44 points greater in the two mepolizumab groups, respectively, than in the placebo group (minimal clinically important change, 0.5 points) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The safety profile of mepolizumab was similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS Mepolizumab administered either intravenously or subcutaneously significantly reduced asthma exacerbations and was associated with improvements in markers of asthma control. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; MENSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01691521.).

Analysis of induced sputum in adults with asthma: identification of subgroup with isolated sputum neutrophilia and poor response to inhaled corticosteroids

Background: The debate as to whether asthma is a single or heterogeneous disease remains unresolved although pathological studies, mostly using fibreoptic bronchoscopy on small numbers of subjects, have emphasised the similarities between different clinical phenotypes. Methods: Lower airway inflammation was assessed non-invasively using induced sputum in 34 normal controls and 259 adults with symptomatic asthma receiving treatment at steps 1–3 of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines. A subgroup of 49 patients treated with as required β2 agonists only who met BTS criteria for a step up in treatment were studied before and 2 months after treatment with inhaled budesonide 400 μg twice daily. Results: There was considerable heterogeneity in induced sputum cell counts, particularly in non-atopic patients. A subgroup of 60 patients had a distinctive sputum cell profile with a neutrophil count higher than our normal range (>65.3%) and a normal sputum eosinophil count (<1.9%). These patients were older, predominantly female, and were more likely to be non-atopic but otherwise had similar clinical and physiological features to the group as a whole. Among the 49 subjects studied before and after inhaled budesonide, 11 patients had an isolated sputum neutrophilia. Following treatment, these patients showed significantly less improvement in visual analogue symptom scores (–5.5 v –19.4 mm; mean difference 13.9; 95% CI 0.7 to 27.0), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (–0.08 v 0.13 l; mean difference 0.21; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.39), and concentration of methacholine provoking a fall in FEV1 of 20% or more (PC20) (0.15 v 1.29 doubling doses; mean difference 1.11; 95% CI 0.13 to 2.15) than the remaining 38 patients. Conclusions: These results suggest the presence of a distinct subgroup of patients with mild to moderate asthma who have predominantly neutrophilic airway inflammation and who respond less well to treatment with inhaled corticosteroids.

Oral Glucocorticoid-Sparing Effect of Mepolizumab in Eosinophilic Asthma

BACKGROUND Many patients with severe asthma require regular treatment with oral glucocorticoids despite the use of high-dose inhaled therapy. However, the regular use of systemic glucocorticoids can result in serious and often irreversible adverse effects. Mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to and inactivates interleukin-5, has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. METHODS In a randomized, double-blind trial involving 135 patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, we compared the glucocorticoid-sparing effect of mepolizumab (at a dose of 100 mg) with that of placebo administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 20 weeks. The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in the glucocorticoid dose (90 to 100% reduction, 75 to less than 90% reduction, 50 to less than 75% reduction, more than 0 to less than 50% reduction, or no decrease in oral glucocorticoid dose, a lack of asthma control during weeks 20 to 24, or withdrawal from treatment). Other outcomes included the rate of asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and safety. RESULTS The likelihood of a reduction in the glucocorticoid-dose stratum was 2.39 times greater in the mepolizumab group than in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 4.56; P=0.008). The median percentage reduction from baseline in the glucocorticoid dose was 50% in the mepolizumab group, as compared with no reduction in the placebo group (P=0.007). Despite receiving a reduced glucocorticoid dose, patients in the mepolizumab group, as compared with those in the placebo group, had a relative reduction of 32% in the annualized rate of exacerbations (1.44 vs. 2.12, P=0.04) and a reduction of 0.52 points with respect to asthma symptoms (P=0.004), as measured on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 (in which the minimal clinically important difference is 0.5 points). The safety profile of mepolizumab was similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS In patients requiring daily oral glucocorticoid therapy to maintain asthma control, mepolizumab had a significant glucocorticoid-sparing effect, reduced exacerbations, and improved control of asthma symptoms. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; SIRIUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01691508.).

Sputum eosinophilia and short-term response to prednisolone in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) respond to corticosteroid therapy. Whether these patients have different airway pathology from other COPD patients is unclear. We tested the hypothesis that response to prednisolone is related to the presence of eosinophilic airway inflammation. METHODS We did a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial. Patients who had COPD treated with bronchodilators only were assigned placebo and 30 mg prednisolone daily for 2 weeks each, in a random order, separated by a 4-week washout period. Before and after each treatment period, we assessed patients with spirometry, symptom scores, the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ), incremental shuttle walk test, and induced sputum. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS 83 patients were recruited, of whom 67 were randomised. The geometric mean sputum eosinophil count fell significantly after prednisolone (from 2.4% to 0.4%; mean difference six-fold [95% CI 3.1-11.4]) but not after placebo. Other sputum cell counts did not change. After stratification into tertiles by baseline eosinophil count, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and total scores on the CRQ improved progressively after prednisolone from the lowest to the highest eosinophilic tertile, compared with placebo. The mean change in postbronchodilator FEV1, total CRQ score, and shuttle walk distance with prednisolone compared with placebo in the highest tertile was 0.19 L (0.06-0.32), 0.62 (0.31-0.93), and 20 m (5-35), respectively. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that eosinophilic airway inflammation contributes to airflow obstruction and symptoms in some patients with COPD and that the short-term effects of prednisolone are due to modification of this feature of the inflammatory response. The possibility that sputum eosinophilia identifies a subgroup of patients who particularly respond to long-term treatment with inhaled corticosteroids should be investigated.