Sally E. Wenzel

Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary

Asthma is a serious health problem throughout the world. During the past two decades, many scientific advances have improved our understanding of asthma and ability to manage and control it effectively. However, recommendations for asthma care need to be adapted to local conditions, resources and services. Since it was formed in 1993, the Global Initiative for Asthma, a network of individuals, organisations and public health officials, has played a leading role in disseminating information about the care of patients with asthma based on a process of continuous review of published scientific investigations. A comprehensive workshop report entitled “A Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention”, first published in 1995, has been widely adopted, translated and reproduced, and forms the basis for many national guidelines. The 2006 report contains important new themes. First, it asserts that “it is reasonable to expect that in most patients with asthma, control of the disease can and should be achieved and maintained,” and recommends a change in approach to asthma management, with asthma control, rather than asthma severity, being the focus of treatment decisions. The importance of the patient–care giver partnership and guided self-management, along with setting goals for treatment, are also emphasised.

Identification of Asthma Phenotypes Using Cluster Analysis in the Severe Asthma Research Program

RATIONALE The Severe Asthma Research Program cohort includes subjects with persistent asthma who have undergone detailed phenotypic characterization. Previous univariate methods compared features of mild, moderate, and severe asthma. OBJECTIVES To identify novel asthma phenotypes using an unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis. METHODS Reduction of the initial 628 variables to 34 core variables was achieved by elimination of redundant data and transformation of categorical variables into ranked ordinal composite variables. Cluster analysis was performed on 726 subjects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Five groups were identified. Subjects in Cluster 1 (n = 110) have early onset atopic asthma with normal lung function treated with two or fewer controller medications (82%) and minimal health care utilization. Cluster 2 (n = 321) consists of subjects with early-onset atopic asthma and preserved lung function but increased medication requirements (29% on three or more medications) and health care utilization. Cluster 3 (n = 59) is a unique group of mostly older obese women with late-onset nonatopic asthma, moderate reductions in FEV(1), and frequent oral corticosteroid use to manage exacerbations. Subjects in Clusters 4 (n = 120) and 5 (n = 116) have severe airflow obstruction with bronchodilator responsiveness but differ in to their ability to attain normal lung function, age of asthma onset, atopic status, and use of oral corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS Five distinct clinical phenotypes of asthma have been identified using unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis. All clusters contain subjects who meet the American Thoracic Society definition of severe asthma, which supports clinical heterogeneity in asthma and the need for new approaches for the classification of disease severity in asthma.

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.

Asthma phenotypes: the evolution from clinical to molecular approaches

Although asthma has been considered as a single disease for years, recent studies have increasingly focused on its heterogeneity. The characterization of this heterogeneity has promoted the concept that asthma consists of multiple phenotypes or consistent groupings of characteristics. Asthma phenotypes were initially focused on combinations of clinical characteristics, but they are now evolving to link biology to phenotype, often through a statistically based process. Ongoing studies of large-scale, molecularly and genetically focused and extensively clinically characterized cohorts of asthma should enhance our ability to molecularly understand these phenotypes and lead to more targeted and personalized approaches to asthma therapy.

International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma

Severe or therapy-resistant asthma is increasingly recognised as a major unmet need. A Task Force, supported by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, reviewed the definition and provided recommendations and guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of severe asthma in children and adults. A literature review was performed, followed by discussion by an expert committee according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for development of specific clinical recommendations. When the diagnosis of asthma is confirmed and comorbidities addressed, severe asthma is defined as asthma that requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller and/or systemic corticosteroids to prevent it from becoming “uncontrolled” or that remains “uncontrolled” despite this therapy. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition consisting of phenotypes such as eosinophilic asthma. Specific recommendations on the use of sputum eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide to guide therapy, as well as treatment with anti-IgE antibody, methotrexate, macrolide antibiotics, antifungal agents and bronchial thermoplasty are provided. Coordinated research efforts for improved phenotyping will provide safe and effective biomarker-driven approaches to severe asthma therapy. ERS/ATS guidelines revise the definition of severe asthma, discuss phenotypes and provide guidance on patient management http://ow.ly/roufI

Asthma: defining of the persistent adult phenotypes.

The common disease asthma is probably not a single disease, but rather a complex of multiple, separate syndromes that overlap. Although clinicians have recognised these different phenotypes for many years, they have remained poorly characterised, with little known about the underlying pathobiology contributing to them. Development of targeted therapies for asthma, and phenotype-specific clinical trials have raised interest in these phenotypes. Improved understanding of these phenotypes in complex diseases such as asthma will also improve our ability to link specific genotypes to their associated disease, which should help development of biomarkers. However, there is no standardised method to define asthma phenotypes. This Review analyses some of the methods that have been used to define asthma phenotypes and proposes an integrated method of classification to improve our understanding of these phenotypes.

Dupilumab in Persistent Asthma with Elevated Eosinophil Levels

BACKGROUND Moderate-to-severe asthma remains poorly treated. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab (SAR231893/REGN668), a fully human monoclonal antibody to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor, in patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and elevated eosinophil levels. METHODS We enrolled patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per microliter or a sputum eosinophil level of at least 3% who used medium-dose to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). We administered dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously once weekly. Patients were instructed to discontinue LABAs at week 4 and to taper and discontinue inhaled glucocorticoids during weeks 6 through 9. Patients received the study drug for 12 weeks or until a protocol-defined asthma exacerbation occurred. The primary end point was the occurrence of an asthma exacerbation; secondary end points included a range of measures of asthma control. Effects on various type 2 helper T-cell (Th2)-associated biomarkers and safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS A total of 52 patients were assigned to the dupilumab group, and 52 patients were assigned to the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. Three patients had an asthma exacerbation with dupilumab (6%) versus 23 with placebo (44%), corresponding to an 87% reduction with dupilumab (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.28; P<0.001). Significant improvements were observed for most measures of lung function and asthma control. Dupilumab reduced biomarkers associated with Th2-driven inflammation. Injection-site reactions, nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache occurred more frequently with dupilumab than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS In patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and elevated eosinophil levels who used inhaled glucocorticoids and LABAs, dupilumab therapy, as compared with placebo, was associated with fewer asthma exacerbations when LABAs and inhaled glucocorticoids were withdrawn, with improved lung function and reduced levels of Th2-associated inflammatory markers. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01312961.).

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.).

Exploring the Effects of Omalizumab in Allergic Asthma

RATIONALE For many patients with asthma, allergic airway inflammation is primarily a Th2-weighted process; however, heterogeneity in patterns of inflammation suggests phenotypic distinctions exist that influence disease presentation and treatment effects. OBJECTIVES To assess the potential of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FE(NO)), peripheral blood eosinophil count, and serum periostin as biomarkers of Th2 inflammation and predictors of treatment effects of omalizumab. METHODS The EXTRA omalizumab study enrolled patients (aged 12-75 yr) with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma. Analyses were performed evaluating treatment effects in relation to FE(NO), blood eosinophils, and serum periostin at baseline. Patients were divided into low- and high-biomarker subgroups. Treatment effects were evaluated as number of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations during the 48-week treatment period (primary endpoint). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A total of 850 patients were enrolled. Data were available from 394 (46.4%), 797 (93.8%), and 534 (62.8%) patients for FE(NO), blood eosinophils, and serum periostin, respectively. After 48 weeks of omalizumab, reductions in protocol-defined exacerbations were greater in high versus low subgroups for all three biomarkers: FE(NO), 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37-70; P = 0.001) versus 16% (95% CI, -32 to 46; P = 0.45); eosinophils, 32% (95% CI, 11-48; P = 0.005) versus 9% (95% CI, -24 to 34; P = 0.54); and periostin, 30% (95% CI, -2 to 51; P = 0.07) versus 3% (95% CI, -43 to 32; P = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS The difference in exacerbation frequency between omalizumab and placebo was greatest in the three high-biomarker subgroups, probably associated with the greater risk for exacerbations in high subgroups. Additional studies are required to explore the value of these biomarkers in clinical practice. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00314574).

The effect of treatment with omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, on asthma exacerbations and emergency medical visits in patients with severe persistent asthma.

Background:  Patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite treatment according to current asthma management guidelines have a significant unmet medical need. Such patients are at high risk of serious exacerbations and asthma‐related mortality.