Mepolizumab improves work productivity, activity limitation, symptoms, and rescue medication use in severe eosinophilic asthma.

Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experience daily activity limitations and reduced productivity at work. Using anonymized individual patient-level data from two previously conducted randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (MENSA [GSK ID:115588/NCT01691521]; MUSCA [GSK ID:200862/NCT02281318]), we investigated the effect of mepolizumab on work productivity, activity limitation, symptoms, and rescue medication use. Patient-reported outcomes including Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health (WPAI-GH) scores (impairment percentages, 0%-100%), global activity limitation (scale 1-4), and perceived change in activity limitation (Likert scale 1-7) since the start of the study were analyzed. WPAI-GH scores from MENSA were analyzed post hoc for employed patients using mixed model repeated measures; global activity limitation and perceived change in activity limitation from MUSCA were analyzed by ordinal logistic regression. Mean changes from baseline in daily asthma symptom scores (scale 0-5) and rescue medication use (occasions/day) were also assessed, via a post hoc meta-analysis of MENSA and MUSCA. At study end, WPAI-GH scores indicative of overall work impairment, impairment while working, and activity impairment consistently improved with mepolizumab versus placebo. Overall, 76% versus 54% of patients rated their activity as "much better," "better," or "slightly better" since the start of the study with mepolizumab versus placebo. Mepolizumab was associated with numerically larger improvements from baseline in asthma symptoms (treatment difference 0.21-0.29 points) and rescue medication use (treatment difference -0.08 to -0.22 occasions/day) versus placebo. Our results indicate that patients with severe eosinophilic asthma may experience improved activity limitation, work productivity, symptoms, and rescue medication use with mepolizumab.

Clinical characteristics and burden of illness among adolescent and adult patients with severe asthma by asthma control: the IDEAL study.

OBJECTIVES: Severe asthma (SA) can be uncontrolled despite guideline-directed treatment. We described SA characteristics and identified factors associated with uncontrolled disease and frequent exacerbations. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the observational IDEAL study (201722/NCT02293265) included patients with SA aged ≥12 years receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus additional controller(s) for ≥12 months. Uncontrolled SA was defined by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 scores ≥1.5 or ≥1 exacerbations (prior year), and further stratified by exacerbation frequency (no/infrequent [0-1] vs frequent [≥2]; prior year); associated factors were determined using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 670 patients with SA, 540 (81%) were uncontrolled (ACQ-5 scores ≥1.5: 80%; ≥1 exacerbations [prior year]: 71%). Uncontrolled patients had lower lung function and worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than controlled patients; 197/540 (37%) experienced frequent exacerbations (prior year). Worse St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, comorbid sinusitis, or eczema were significantly associated with uncontrolled SA; younger age, never smoker status, exacerbation requiring hospitalization (previous year), worse SGRQ symptom score, comorbid nasal polyps, COPD, or osteoporosis were significantly associated with uncontrolled SA with frequent exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS: In IDEAL, one-fifth of patients with SA were controlled, based on symptoms. Uncontrolled, exacerbating SA was associated with specific comorbidities, frequent exacerbations, a lower lung function, and compromised HRQoL, although inference from this analysis is limited by the selective cross-sectional nature of the cohort. Nonetheless, these data highlight the need for more effective precision treatments in this population.

Multinational cohort study of mortality in patients with asthma and severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Data on the risk of death following an asthma exacerbation are scarce. With this multinational cohort study, we assessed all-cause mortality rates, mortality rates following an exacerbation, and patient characteristics associated with all-cause mortality in asthma. METHODS: Asthma patients aged ≥18 years and with ≥1 year of follow-up were identified in 5 European electronic databases from the Netherlands, Italy, UK, Denmark and Spain during the study period January 1, 2008-December 31, 2013. Patients with asthma-COPD overlap were excluded. Severe asthma was defined as use of high dose ICS + use of a second controller. Severe asthma exacerbations were defined as emergency department visits, hospitalizations or systemic corticosteroid use, all for reason of asthma. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 586,436 asthma patients of which 42,611 patients (7.3%) had severe asthma. The age and sex standardized all-cause mortality rates ranged between databases from 5.2 to 9.5/1000 person-years (PY) in asthma, and between 11.3 and 14.8/1000 PY in severe asthma. The all-cause mortality rate in the first week following a severe asthma exacerbation ranged between 14.1 and 59.9/1000 PY. Mortality rates remained high in the first month following a severe asthma exacerbation and decreased thereafter. Higher age, male gender, comorbidity, smoking, and previous severe asthma exacerbations were associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: All-cause mortality following a severe exacerbation is high, especially in the first month following the event. Smoking cessation, comorbidity-management and asthma-treatment focusing on the prevention of exacerbations might reduce associated mortality.

Impact of exacerbations on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score in patients with severe asthma: post hoc analyses of two clinical trials and an observational study.

Objective: To assess the effect of asthma exacerbations and mepolizumab treatment on health status of patients with severe asthma using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).Methods: Post hoc analyses were conducted using data from two randomized controlled trials in patients ≥12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma randomized to receive placebo or mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously (32-week MENSA study) or 100 mg subcutaneously (MENSA/24-week MUSCA studies), and an observational single-visit study in patients with severe asthma (IDEAL). Linear regression models assessed the impact of historical exacerbations on baseline SGRQ total and domain scores (using data from each of the three studies), and within-study severe exacerbations and mepolizumab treatment on end-of-study SGRQ scores (using data from MENSA/MUSCA).Results: Overall, 1755 patients were included (MENSA, N = 540; MUSCA, N = 551; IDEAL, N = 664). In all studies, higher numbers of historical exacerbations were associated with worse baseline SGRQ total scores. Each additional historical exacerbation (beyond the second [MENSA/MUSCA]) or first [IDEAL] was associated with worsening mean total SGRQ scores of +1.5, +1.1 at baseline and +2.3 within the year prior to study enrollment. During MENSA and MUSCA, each within-study severe exacerbation was associated with a worsening in total SGRQ score of +2.4 and +3.4 points at study end. Independent of exacerbation reduction, mepolizumab accounted for an improvement in total SGRQ score of -5.3 points (MENSA) and -6.2 points (MUSCA).Conclusions: These findings support an association between a higher number of exacerbations and worse health status in patients with severe (eosinophilic) asthma.

Evaluation of Potential Continuation Rules for Mepolizumab Treatment of Severe Eosinophilic Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Mepolizumab significantly reduces exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The early identification of patients likely to receive long-term benefit from treatment could ensure effective resource allocation. OBJECTIVE: To assess potential continuation rules for mepolizumab in addition to initiation criteria defined as 2 or more exacerbations in the previous year and blood eosinophil counts of 150 cells/µL or more at initiation or 300 cells/µL or more in the previous year. METHODS: This post hoc analysis included data from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (NCT01000506 and NCT01691521) of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (N = 1,192). Rules based on blood eosinophils, physician-rated response to treatment, FEV1, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) score, and exacerbation reduction were assessed at week 16. To assess these rules, 2 key metrics accounting for the effects observed in the placebo arm were developed. RESULTS: Patients not meeting continuation rules based on physician-rated response, FEV1, and the ACQ-5 score still derived long-term benefit from mepolizumab. Nearly all patients failing to reduce blood eosinophils had counts of 150 cells/µL or less at baseline. For exacerbations, assessment after 16 weeks was potentially premature for predicting future exacerbations. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a reliable physician-rated response, ACQ-5 score, or lung function-based continuation rule. The added value of changes in blood eosinophils at week 16 over baseline was marginal. Initiation criteria for mepolizumab treatment provide the best method for assessing patient benefit from mepolizumab treatment, and treatment continuation should be reviewed on the basis of a predefined reduction in long-term exacerbation frequency and/or oral corticosteroid dose.

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

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.

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with severe asthma.

PURPOSE: Limited data exist on the quantitative validity of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) in asthma populations. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the SGRQ in patients with severe asthma. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from MENSA (N = 576; NCT01691508) and SIRIUS (N = 135; NCT01691521), two randomized, placebo controlled trials of mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma. Patients completed the SGRQ at Baseline and Exit (MENSA Week 32; SIRIUS Week 24). Distributional characteristics, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability was acceptable for the total and domain scores at Baseline and Exit (Cronbach's α was 0.92 and 0.94 at Baseline and Exit, respectively, for the total score). Test-retest reliability was demonstrated (intraclass correlation coefficients >0.7) for total score and the Activity and Impacts domains. Convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated with measures associated or not associated with respiratory-related health status. Known groups validity based on baseline FEV1% predicted, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score, exacerbations and eosinophil counts was demonstrated for the SGRQ total and domain scores. Responses to therapy based on clinician-rated response, patient-rated response, ACQ-5 change score and exacerbations generally correlated with improvements in SGRQ scores. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that the SGRQ has acceptable psychometric properties in patients with severe asthma, exceeding the thresholds for adequate reliability, validity and responsiveness. The SGRQ appears to be a good instrument for identifying response to therapy in patients with severe asthma.

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

PURPOSE: Content validity is the extent to which a patient-reported outcome measure evaluates the concepts most relevant to a patient's condition and treatment. The St George's 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.

Comparative effectiveness of mepolizumab and omalizumab in severe asthma: An indirect treatment comparison.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma is a heterogeneous disease. Patients with both eosinophilic and allergic asthma phenotypes may be eligible for treatment with mepolizumab and omalizumab. Evidence on the relative effectiveness of these treatments in this 'overlap' population would be informative for clinical and payer decision making. METHODS: A systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison (Bayesian framework) were performed to assess the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of mepolizumab and omalizumab, as add-ons to standard of care. Studies included in the primary analysis were double-blind, randomized controlled trials, ≥12 weeks' duration enrolling patients with severe asthma with a documented exacerbation history and receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus ≥1 additional controller. Two populations were examined: patients potentially eligible for 1) both treatments (Overlap population) and 2) either treatment (Trial population). RESULTS: In the Overlap population, no differences between treatments in clinically significant exacerbations and exacerbations requiring hospitalization were found, although trends favored mepolizumab (rate ratio [RR]:0.66 [95% credible intervals (Crl):0.37,1.19]; 0.19[0.02,2.32], respectively). In the Trial population, mepolizumab treatment produced greater reductions in clinically significant exacerbations (RR:0.63 [95% CrI:0.45,0.89]) but not exacerbations requiring hospitalization compared with omalizumab (RR:0.58 [95% Crl: 0.16,2.13]), although the trend favored mepolizumab. Both treatments had broadly comparable effects on lung function, and similar tolerability profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst this analysis has limitations due to a restricted evidence base and residual heterogeneity, it showed that in patients with severe asthma, mepolizumab seems to be at least as effective as omalizumab and that the tolerability profiles of the two treatments did not meaningfully differentiate.

Comparative efficacy of combination bronchodilator therapies in COPD: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several new fixed-dose combination bronchodilators have been recently launched, and assessing their efficacy relative to each other, and with open dual combinations is desirable. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of umeclidinium and vilanterol (UMEC/VI) with that of available dual bronchodilators in single/separate inhalers. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials of ≥10 weeks among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients (≥40 years), assessing the efficacy of combination bronchodilators in single or separate inhalers. Comparative assessment was conducted on change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores, transitional dyspnea index (TDI) focal scores, and rescue medication use at 12 weeks and 24 weeks using an NMA within a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: A systematic literature review identified 77 articles of 26 trials comparing UMEC/VI, indacaterol/glycopyrronium (QVA149), formoterol plus tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg, salmeterol plus TIO, or indacaterol plus TIO, with TIO and placebo as common comparators at 12 weeks and approximately 24 weeks. The NMA showed that at 24 weeks, efficacy of UMEC/VI was not significantly different compared with QVA149 on trough FEV1 (14.1 mL [95% credible interval: -14.2, 42.3]), SGRQ total score (0.18 [-1.28, 1.63]), TDI focal score (-0.30 [-0.73, 0.13]), and rescue medication use (0.02 [-0.27, 0.32]); compared with salmeterol plus TIO on trough FEV1 (67.4 mL [-25.3, 159.4]), SGRQ total score (-0.11 [-1.84, 1.61]), and TDI focal score (0.58 [-0.33, 1.50]); and compared with formoterol plus TIO 18 µg on SGRQ total score (-0.68 [-1.77, 0.39]). Results at week 12 were consistent with week 24 outcomes. Due to lack of availability of evidence, no comparison was made with formoterol plus TIO on FEV1 or TDI at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI has comparable efficacy to other dual-bronchodilator combinations on available efficacy endpoints.

Comparison of laboratory- and field-based exercise tests for COPD: a systematic review.

Exercise tests are often used to evaluate the functional status of patients with COPD. However, to the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive systematic comparison of these tests has not been performed. We systematically reviewed studies reporting the repeatability and/or reproducibility of these tests, and studies comparing their sensitivity to therapeutic intervention. A systematic review identified primary manuscripts in English reporting relevant data on the following exercise tests: 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and 12-minute walk test, incremental and endurance shuttle walk tests (ISWT and ESWT, respectively), incremental and endurance cycle ergometer tests, and incremental and endurance treadmill tests. We identified 71 relevant studies. Good repeatability (for the 6MWT and ESWT) and reproducibility (for the 6MWT, 12-minute walk test, ISWT, ESWT, and incremental cycle ergometer test) were reported by most studies assessing these tests, providing patients were familiarized with them beforehand. The 6MWT, ISWT, and particularly the ESWT were reported to be sensitive to therapeutic intervention. Protocol variations (eg, track layout or supplemental oxygen use) affected performance significantly in several studies. This review shows that while the validity of several tests has been established, for others further study is required. Future work will assess the link between these tests, physiological mechanisms, and patient-reported measures.