Impact of dupilumab across seasons in patients with type 2, uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal variability could influence asthma exacerbations. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation. In the 52-week QUEST study (NCT02414854), add-on dupilumab every 2 weeks vs placebo significantly reduced exacerbations and improved prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma. TRAVERSE (NCT02134028), the open-label QUEST extension study, enrolled patients with moderate-to-severe asthma to investigate long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab, including patients who previously received placebo that initiated dupilumab therapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate long-term dupilumab efficacy in reducing exacerbations across yearly seasons in patients with type 2 inflammatory asthma with and without clinical evidence of allergic asthma. METHODS: Unadjusted annualized exacerbation rate and proportions of patients experiencing severe asthma exacerbations are reported by month and season and for both hemispheres. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with type 2 asthma experiencing 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations during QUEST was 20.8% vs 10.0% in spring, 18.2% vs 7.3% in summer, 22.2% vs 12.6% in autumn, and 26.4% vs 12.0% in winter, for placebo- vs dupilumab-treated patients, respectively; P was less than .001 for placebo vs dupilumab in all seasons. Reductions in the proportion of patients experiencing severe exacerbations across seasons in subgroups with and without evidence of allergic asthma were similar to the overall type 2 population. Reductions in severe exacerbations observed during QUEST were sustained during TRAVERSE, up to 96 weeks across both hemispheres. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab reduced asthma exacerbations, with no difference in the reduction between seasons, in patients with type 2 inflammation, with and without evidence of allergic asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02414854, NCT02134028.

Baseline FeNO Independently Predicts the Dupilumab Response in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: FeNO may have a role as both a prognostic and predictive biomarker in combination with eosinophils for assessing responsiveness to some biological therapies. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the value of baseline FeNO, adjusted for baseline blood eosinophil levels and other clinical characteristics, as an independent predictor of treatment response to dupilumab in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST (NCT02414854), a phase 3, double-blind study in patients aged 12 years and older with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, who received dupilumab 200 or 300 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks up to 52 weeks. We assessed the annualized event rate of severe exacerbations and least-squares mean change from baseline in prebronchodilator FEV1 at weeks 12 and 52 in relationship to baseline FeNO, adjusted for eosinophils and other clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The annualized event rate increased with increasing baseline FeNO in placebo and decreased in dupilumab groups. The relative risk of severe exacerbations was 22·7%, 58·3%, and 69·3% lower for dupilumab versus placebo for the FeNO less than 25, 25 to less than 50, and 50 and greater parts per billion subgroups. The magnitude of FEV1 improvement increased with higher baseline FeNO for dupilumab and was consistent across the continuum of FeNO levels in placebo. Both findings were independent of blood eosinophil levels. Significant differences were observed between FeNO subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Increased baseline FeNO was associated with greater clinical effects in dupilumab versus placebo independently of eosinophil levels and other clinical characteristics.

Dupilumab Efficacy in Steroid-Dependent Severe Asthma by Baseline Oral Corticosteroid Dose.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4/-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases. In the phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA VENTURE (VENTURE) study (NCT02528214), dupilumab versus placebo reduced oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose and improved clinical outcomes in patients with OCS-dependent severe asthma. Dupilumab efficacy in patients with varying disease burden (defined by baseline OCS dose) has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of VENTURE evaluated dupilumab efficacy across subgroups defined by baseline OCS dose. METHODS: The OCS dose, proportion no longer needing OCS at week 24, annualized severe exacerbation rate, and least squares mean change from baseline in pre- and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second at week 24 were evaluated in VENTURE patients with OCS-dependent severe asthma receiving dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks versus placebo, categorized by a baseline OCS dose of less than 10 mg/d or 10 or more mg/d. RESULTS: Dupilumab reduced daily OCS dose from baseline at week 24 in both dose groups. In dupilumab-/placebo-treated patients with a baseline OCS dose of less than 10 mg/d and 10 or more mg/d, 72%/42% and 37%/23% stopped OCS by week 24 (P < .01/P < .05), respectively. Dupilumab significantly reduced the annualized severe exacerbation rate by 71% and 48% (P < .01/P < .05). At week 24, dupilumab improved pre- and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second in patients in both dose groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with OCS-dependent severe asthma receiving lower or higher baseline OCS doses, dupilumab significantly reduced the OCS dose and improved the likelihood of no longer requiring OCS while also reducing exacerbations and improving lung function.

Time of administration important? Morning versus evening dosing of valsartan.

OBJECTIVE: Studies suggest that bedtime dosing of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker shows a more sustained and consistent 24-h antihypertensive profile, including greater night-time blood pressure (BP) reduction. We compared the antihypertensive effects of morning (a.m.) and evening (p.m.) dosing of valsartan on 24-h BP. METHODS: This 26-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of valsartan 320 mg, dosed a.m. or p.m., versus lisinopril 40 mg (a.m.), a long-acting ACE-inhibitor, in patients with grade 1-2 hypertension and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients (n = 1093; BP = 156 ±â€Š11/91 ±â€Š8 mmHg; 62 years, 56% male, 99% white) received (1 : 1 : 1) valsartan 160 mg a.m. or p.m. or lisinopril 20 mg a.m. for 4 weeks, then force-titrated to double the initial dose for 8 weeks. At Week 12, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added for 14 weeks if office BP was more than 140/90 mmHg and/or ambulatory BP more than 130/80 mmHg. RESULTS: Mean 24-h ambulatory SBP change from baseline to Weeks 12 and 26 was comparable between valsartan a.m. (-10.6 and -13.3 mmHg) and p.m. (-9.8 and -12.3 mmHg) and lisinopril (-10.7 and -13.7 mmHg). There was no benefit of valsartan p.m. versus a.m. on night-time BP, early morning BP and morning BP surge. Evening dosing also did not improve BP lowering in patients requiring add-on HCTZ or in nondippers at baseline. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing of valsartan 320 mg results in equally effective 24-h BP efficacy, regardless of dosing time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00241124.

Effects of demographics on the antihypertensive efficacy of triple therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide for moderate to severe hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of once-daily triple therapy with amlodipine (Aml) 10 mg, valsartan (Val) 320 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg versus dual-therapy combinations of these components in patients with moderate to severe hypertension. RESEARCH DESIGN: Subgroup analysis of a multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled trial. METHODS: After antihypertensive washout and a placebo run-in of up to 4 weeks, 2271 patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive Aml/Val/HCTZ triple therapy or dual therapy with Val/HCTZ, Aml/Val, or Aml/HCTZ for 8 weeks. Forced titration to the full dose was done over the first 2 weeks of treatment. Efficacy and safety parameters were determined by age group (<65 vs. ≥65 years), gender, race (White vs. Black), ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino vs. non-Hispanic/Latino), and body mass index (BMI, <30 vs. ≥30 kg/m²). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change from baseline to endpoint in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP); blood pressure (BP) control rate <140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Triple therapy was numerically superior and, for the majority of comparisons, statistically superior to each dual therapy in reducing MSSBP and MSDBP and in improving BP control rates in all subgroups. Across subgroups, triple therapy reduced MSSBP by 5.7-10.7 mmHg more than Val/HCTZ, 3.4-8.3 mmHg more than Aml/Val, and 4.4-9.4 mmHg more than Aml/HCTZ. Triple therapy was well tolerated across all subgroups. Limitations of our analysis included the lack of stratification of patients by subgroup at randomization and the small sample size of some subgroups (e.g., Blacks, elderly). CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with Aml/Val/HCTZ is effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe hypertension regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, or BMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00327587.

Triple combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide vs dual combination therapy with amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide for stage 2 hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with amlodipine/valsartan+hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val+HCTZ) vs dual therapy with Aml+HCTZ in stage 2 hypertensive patients. METHODS: The analysis included patients from an eight-week, multicenter, double-blind study, randomized to Aml/Val 10/160 mg or Aml 10 mg groups, who received add-on HCTZ 12.5 mg at week 4 if mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) was >130 mmHg. RESULTS: Of the patients receiving Aml/Val+HCTZ and Aml+HCTZ, 98% (N = 133/136) and 96% (N = 200/208) completed the study, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups (Caucasians, 80.2%; diabetics, 14.8%; age, 58.6 years [28.2% ≥ 65 years]; body mass index, 31 kg/m(2); mean sitting blood pressure (msBP), 171.5/95.5 mmHg [18% msSBP ≥ 180 mmHg]). Aml/Val+HCTZ provided significantly greater msBP reductions from baseline to week 8 than Aml+HCTZ (30.5/13.8 vs 24.3/8.3 mmHg, P < 0.0001). The incremental msBP reduction (week 4 to 8) with HCTZ added to Aml/Val was greater than when added to Aml (6.9/3.5 vs 3.1/1.0 mmHg, P < 0.01). Treatments were well tolerated with similar overall incidence of adverse events (Aml/Val+HCTZ: 33.8%, Aml+HCTZ: 33.2%). CONCLUSION: Aml/Val+HCTZ provided significantly greater BP reductions than Aml+HCTZ in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Aml/Val+HCTZ triple therapy may be a suitable option for patients requiring more than two agents to reach target BP.

Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide triple combination therapy in moderate/severe hypertension: Secondary analyses evaluating efficacy and safety.

INTRODUCTION: An 8-week trial of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCTZ) for moderate or severe hypertension demonstrated more-pronounced blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects compared with dual-component therapies. To elucidate the effects of time and baseline BP on the observed responses, exploratory analyses were performed. METHODS: Patients aged 18-85 years with mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) 145 to <200 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP (MSDBP) 100 to <120 mmHg were randomized to Aml 10 mg/Val 320 mg/HCTZ 25 mg; Val 320 mg/HCTZ 25 mg; Aml 10 mg/Val 320 mg; or Aml 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg. During the first 2 weeks, regimens were force-titrated in two stages. RESULTS: All least-square mean reductions in MSSBP and MSDBP (baseline to Week 3 and end of study) were significantly greater with triple therapy than with each dual therapy in the overall population and the severe systolic subgroup (baseline MSSBP > or =180 mmHg; except vs. Aml 10 mg/Val 320 mg at Week 3). At Week 3, more patients on triple therapy achieved MSSBP reductions of > or =-60, > or =-50, > or =-40, > or =-30, and > or =-20 mmHg (2.5%, 9.7%, 23.2%, 46.9% and 74.5%, respectively) than those on dual therapy (1.1%-2%, 5.6%-5.9%, 14.5%-16.7%, 33.5%-39.1%, and 58.8%-65.5%, respectively); this was also true at study endpoint. End-of-study MSSBP reductions were greater in triple-therapy recipients who had higher (vs. lower) baseline MSSBPs. LSM reductions ranged from -27.2 mmHg for baseline MSSBP 145 to <150 mmHg, to > or =49.6 mmHg for baseline MSSBP > or =180 mmHg. All treatments were well tolerated regardless of baseline MSSBP. CONCLUSION: Aml 10 mg/Val 320 mg/HCTZ 25 mg triple therapy is highly effective in reducing BP compared with dual components early in therapy, and systolic BP-lowering effects were proportionate to hypertension severity.

The role of baseline blood pressure in guiding treatment choice: a secondary analysis of the use of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide as initial therapy in hypertensive adults in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Baseline blood pressure (BP) is a strong predictor of response to antihypertensive therapy and the patient's ability to reach BP goals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of baseline BP as a determinant of systolic BP (SBP) and treatment outcome to assist in the choice of initial therapy. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (n = 1329) in patients with essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic BP [DBP] > or = 95 mmHg and <110 mmHg) who were randomized to placebo, valsartan 160 mg, valsartan 320 mg, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, HCTZ 25 mg, valsartan/HCTZ 160 mg/12.5 mg, valsartan/HCTZ 320 mg/12.5 mg or valsartan/HCTZ 320 mg/25 mg. Retrospective analyses were performed to determine mean BP at end of study and BP goal rates and to explore the relationship between baseline BP level and predicted final BP. RESULTS: The final SBP and DBP were lowest in the combination therapy groups across all baseline BPs and in subgroups of patients categorized by age (> or = 65 years, <65 years), race/ethnicity (White, Black, other), and severity of hypertension at baseline. The proportion of patients achieving the SBP goal of <140 mmHg was highest in the valsartan/HCTZ 320 mg/25 mg group; the overall SBP goal achievement rate was 85%, and 78% of participants with stage 2 hypertension achieved goal. By comparison, 59% of patients in the HCTZ 25 mg group and 52% in the valsartan 320 mg group achieved SBP goal. Initial combination therapy was associated with lower predicted final SBP and DBP at all baseline BP levels compared with monotherapy. Analysis of tolerability data revealed that the proportion of patients experiencing dizziness or discontinuing therapy due to adverse events was generally similar across treatment groups, whereas the BP-lowering efficacy was greatest in the groups receiving combination therapy. CONCLUSION: These secondary analyses suggest that characterizing the relationship between baseline SBP and achieved SBP can assist in the choice of initial therapy in a broad hypertensive population. Initial therapy with the combination of valsartan/HCTZ is more effective than monotherapy in lowering BP at all baseline BP levels, is consistent in this respect among all subgroups, and is well tolerated.

Initial combination therapy compared with monotherapy in diabetic hypertensive patients.

Subgroup analyses were performed for the diabetic and nondiabetic cohorts from 3 randomized clinical trials that had evaluated the systolic blood pressure (SBP)-lowering efficacy and tolerability of an angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan, alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide to determine when and how to initiate combination therapy in hypertensive patients with diabetes. Blood pressure reductions achieved with monotherapy were compared with combination therapy in the diabetic and nondiabetic cohorts. In addition, multivariate models were developed to predict the likelihood of the goal SBP of < 130 mm Hg being reached in a diabetic patient with monotherapy or combination therapy across the range of baseline SBP values. In 2 of the 3 trials, comparable reductions in SBP were seen in the diabetic and nondiabetic cohorts. In all 3 studies, however, combination therapy provided greater blood pressure-lowering efficacy than monotherapy. The probability of achieving goal SBP was greater for diabetic patients started on combination therapy compared with monotherapy.

Achieving BP goals with valsartan and HCTZ alone and in combination: pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hypertension will require combination therapy to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, especially the elderly, obese, or those with stage 2 hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To assess BP response and time to achieve BP goals in a diverse population of hypertensive patients treated with hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan, or a combination. METHODS: For this secondary post-hoc analysis, data were pooled from two similar randomized, double-blind, 8-week trials that evaluated hydrochlorothiazide (12.5-25 mg) and valsartan (160 mg) monotherapies, their combination (160/12.5 mg), and placebo. Subgroups were defined by age, hypertension severity, and obesity. Adults with diastolic BP > or =95 and < or =115 mmHg were included. Goal rates were estimated from a logistic model with treatment, study, age group, race, and baseline body mass index as factors and baseline diastolic BP as a covariate. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to calculate the time to achieve BP goals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy variables were reductions from baseline to study end in systolic BP and diastolic BP, rates of achieving BP goals (<140/90 mmHg), and time to achieve BP goals. Adverse events were also reported for the pooled trials. RESULTS: BP reductions at study end and goal achievement rates were greater with combination therapy (-20/15 mmHg and 72%, respectively) than with either monotherapy (valsartan 160 mg: -14/11 mmHg, 61%; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg: -14/10 mmHg, 50%) for the overall population (N=1313) and in patient subgroups. Patients treated with initial combination therapy reached goal in 27-56% of the time needed for those treated with monotherapy. Combination therapy was well tolerated and was associated with a decreased incidence of hypokalemia compared with hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy resulted in greater reductions in BP and achievement of goal BP in a shorter period of time. Although interpretation of this study is subject to the limitations associated with any post-hoc analysis, the results suggest that initiating treatment with combination therapy may be considered for expedient and effective BP control.

Predicting age- and dose-related responses to antihypertensive therapy: pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials of valsartan alone and combined with hydrochlorothiazide.

We evaluated the relationship between age and treatment response from pooled data from two randomized trials in which 1,464 patients with Stage 2 hypertension were treated with valsartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Multivariate models were constructed for two response variables: systolic blood pressure (SBP) achieved at week 8 and change from baseline in SBP at week 8. Increasing age and higher baseline SBP were associated with proportionally higher final SBP values. The highly significant age-related decline in treatment response was substantially reduced with valsartan plus HCTZ compared with valsartan alone. Adverse event rates were generally comparable across the treatment groups. This analysis indicates that both age and baseline SBP should be considered when selecting antihypertensive therapy for patients with Stage 2 hypertension; for many older patients, initial therapy with both valsartan and HCTZ may be necessary, but in younger patients, one drug may be appropriate. However, because >87% of the study participants were White, it is unclear whether these results are applicable to other ethnic groups.

Time to achieve blood-pressure goal: influence of dose of valsartan monotherapy and valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess time to achieve blood-pressure (BP) goal with incremental doses of valsartan alone, and together with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), in patients with uncomplicated hypertension. METHODS: This analysis pooled patient-level data from nine randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled trials (N = 4278) of once-daily valsartan 80 mg, 160 mg, and 320 mg, and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 80/12.5 mg, 160/12.5 mg, 160/25 mg, 320/12.5 mg, and 320/25 mg. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated the cumulative proportion of patients achieving BP <140/90 mm Hg over 8 weeks and the median time to BP goal. The HCTZ 12.5-mg and 25-mg doses were pooled for the time-to-goal analysis in patients receiving combinations with valsartan 160 mg or 320 mg. RESULTS: Overall, the median time-to-goal was 8.1 weeks with valsartan 160 mg, 6.1 weeks with valsartan 320 mg, 2.6 weeks with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ, and 2.1 weeks with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ. In patients with stage 2 hypertension, the median time-to-goal was 4.3 weeks with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ and 2.4 weeks with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ. Goal rates by Week 4 for valsartan/HCTZ exceeded rates by Week 8 with the same doses of valsartan alone. Overall, the proportion that achieved BP goal by Week 8 was 32.6% with valsartan 80 mg, 48.4% with valsartan 160 mg, 54.2% with valsartan 320 mg, 74.6% with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ, and 84.8% with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ, versus 24.2% with placebo. With valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ, 75.8% of stage 2 patients and 94% of stage 1 patients reached BP goal by Week 8. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were generally low across doses. CONCLUSIONS: In both stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, BP control is achieved more frequently and promptly when patients receive higher doses of valsartan monotherapy or valsartan combination therapy, with a favorable benefit-risk profile.

Evaluation of the dose response with valsartan and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension.

This patient data meta-analysis included 9 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (N=4278) of once-daily valsartan 80, 160, or 320 mg or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide 80/12.5, 160/12.5, 160/25, 320/12.5, or 320/25 mg given for 4 to 8 weeks. Efficacy variables included: (1) mean change in systolic blood pressure (BP) and diastolic BP; and (2) proportion of patients reaching BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg) at the end of the study. Results showed that incremental systolic and diastolic BP reductions were achieved with increasing doses. Starting doses of valsartan 160 mg provided greater BP reductions and a higher proportion of patients reaching goal than 80 mg; combination therapy was more effective than monotherapy. BP goal rates increased incrementally with higher doses. With valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide 320/25 mg, 74.9% overall, 88.8% of stage 1, and 62.1% of stage 2 patients reached BP goal. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was low with both monotherapy and combination treatment. Higher starting doses may enable patients to achieve greater initial BP reductions and reach BP goal more rapidly.