TBD Meeting (5125-19)

MADRID – For the treatment of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) is more effective than riociguat for reducing pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and improving functional class, according to a multicenter trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Congress.

Both therapies are widely used in the treatment of CTEPH, but this is the first controlled trial in which they were directly compared, according to Xavier Jaïs, MD, of the Pulmonology Service, Kremlin-Bicêtre Hospital, University of Paris-Sud.

In this randomized trial, called RACE, newly diagnosed and previously untreated patients with nonoperable CTEPH were enrolled. The key eligibility criteria included PVR greater than 320 dynes/sec per cm^–5 and a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure of 15 mm Hg or less.

The patients were randomized to BPA or riociguat and followed for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relative change in PVR from baseline. The 6-minute walk distance, change in functional class, time to clinical worsening and safety were among secondary endpoints.

As calculated by geometric mean from baseline, PVR was reduced by nearly 60% in the BPA group and by 32% in the riociguat group, providing a 40% (P less than .0001) relative advantage of BPA.

Although there was a small relative advantage in the 6-minute walk distance for the BPA group at the end of the study, it did not reach statistical significant. However, 88% of those randomized to BPA versus 49% of those treated with riociguat (P less than .0001) improved by at least one WHO class by the end of the study.

Clinical worsening events over the course of the trial were uncommon. All three of these events occurred in the riociguat group, but the difference was not significant.

The end-of-study reduction in brain natriuretic peptide, which was another secondary endpoint, was 67% greater in the BPA group (P less than .0001).

There was a safety cost for the greater efficacy of BPA. This included a higher proportion of patients in the BPA group with at least one serious adverse event (50% vs. 26%) and at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (14% vs. 9%). No patient in either arm discontinued therapy because of treatment-related adverse events, and there were no deaths over the course of the study in either arm.

The study has included a 6-month extension to allow patients symptomatic on their originally assigned therapy to switch to the opposite treatment. Results of the extension are not yet available, but Dr. Jaïs said that these data might provide insight about which therapy to start first.

“It was very important to do this trial,” according to the ERS-invited discussant, Martin Kolb, MD, of the Firestone Institute of Respiratory Health, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. The most recent World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension identified BPA and medical therapy as reasonable choices in inoperable CTEPH, but Dr. Kolb said there has been an unmet need for comparative data.

“This was a very strong study that demonstrated a powerful impact for both interventions on pulmonary vascular resistance,” Dr. Kolb said, adding that, although BPA proved to be more effective, clinicians consider the greater risk of adverse events. He believes further work needs to be done in identifying the best candidates for each and to explore hybrid approaches.

“What do you think about doing these sequentially so that you lower the pressure first with medical therapy and then go in with the balloon?” Dr. Kolb asked Dr. Jaïs during a discussion that followed presentation of the RACE results.

Dr. Jaïs conceded this point, noting that the treatments have different targets and might be complementary.

“We plan to do a study like this in the future,” Dr. Jaïs said.

Dr. Jaïs reported no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – For the treatment of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) is more effective than riociguat for reducing pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and improving functional class, according to a multicenter trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Congress.

Both therapies are widely used in the treatment of CTEPH, but this is the first controlled trial in which they were directly compared, according to Xavier Jaïs, MD, of the Pulmonology Service, Kremlin-Bicêtre Hospital, University of Paris-Sud.

In this randomized trial, called RACE, newly diagnosed and previously untreated patients with nonoperable CTEPH were enrolled. The key eligibility criteria included PVR greater than 320 dynes/sec per cm^–5 and a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure of 15 mm Hg or less.

The patients were randomized to BPA or riociguat and followed for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relative change in PVR from baseline. The 6-minute walk distance, change in functional class, time to clinical worsening and safety were among secondary endpoints.

As calculated by geometric mean from baseline, PVR was reduced by nearly 60% in the BPA group and by 32% in the riociguat group, providing a 40% (P less than .0001) relative advantage of BPA.

Although there was a small relative advantage in the 6-minute walk distance for the BPA group at the end of the study, it did not reach statistical significant. However, 88% of those randomized to BPA versus 49% of those treated with riociguat (P less than .0001) improved by at least one WHO class by the end of the study.

Clinical worsening events over the course of the trial were uncommon. All three of these events occurred in the riociguat group, but the difference was not significant.

The end-of-study reduction in brain natriuretic peptide, which was another secondary endpoint, was 67% greater in the BPA group (P less than .0001).

There was a safety cost for the greater efficacy of BPA. This included a higher proportion of patients in the BPA group with at least one serious adverse event (50% vs. 26%) and at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (14% vs. 9%). No patient in either arm discontinued therapy because of treatment-related adverse events, and there were no deaths over the course of the study in either arm.

The study has included a 6-month extension to allow patients symptomatic on their originally assigned therapy to switch to the opposite treatment. Results of the extension are not yet available, but Dr. Jaïs said that these data might provide insight about which therapy to start first.

“It was very important to do this trial,” according to the ERS-invited discussant, Martin Kolb, MD, of the Firestone Institute of Respiratory Health, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. The most recent World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension identified BPA and medical therapy as reasonable choices in inoperable CTEPH, but Dr. Kolb said there has been an unmet need for comparative data.

“This was a very strong study that demonstrated a powerful impact for both interventions on pulmonary vascular resistance,” Dr. Kolb said, adding that, although BPA proved to be more effective, clinicians consider the greater risk of adverse events. He believes further work needs to be done in identifying the best candidates for each and to explore hybrid approaches.

“What do you think about doing these sequentially so that you lower the pressure first with medical therapy and then go in with the balloon?” Dr. Kolb asked Dr. Jaïs during a discussion that followed presentation of the RACE results.

Dr. Jaïs conceded this point, noting that the treatments have different targets and might be complementary.

“We plan to do a study like this in the future,” Dr. Jaïs said.

Dr. Jaïs reported no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – For the treatment of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) is more effective than riociguat for reducing pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and improving functional class, according to a multicenter trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Congress.

Both therapies are widely used in the treatment of CTEPH, but this is the first controlled trial in which they were directly compared, according to Xavier Jaïs, MD, of the Pulmonology Service, Kremlin-Bicêtre Hospital, University of Paris-Sud.

In this randomized trial, called RACE, newly diagnosed and previously untreated patients with nonoperable CTEPH were enrolled. The key eligibility criteria included PVR greater than 320 dynes/sec per cm^–5 and a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure of 15 mm Hg or less.

The patients were randomized to BPA or riociguat and followed for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was relative change in PVR from baseline. The 6-minute walk distance, change in functional class, time to clinical worsening and safety were among secondary endpoints.

As calculated by geometric mean from baseline, PVR was reduced by nearly 60% in the BPA group and by 32% in the riociguat group, providing a 40% (P less than .0001) relative advantage of BPA.

Although there was a small relative advantage in the 6-minute walk distance for the BPA group at the end of the study, it did not reach statistical significant. However, 88% of those randomized to BPA versus 49% of those treated with riociguat (P less than .0001) improved by at least one WHO class by the end of the study.

Clinical worsening events over the course of the trial were uncommon. All three of these events occurred in the riociguat group, but the difference was not significant.

The end-of-study reduction in brain natriuretic peptide, which was another secondary endpoint, was 67% greater in the BPA group (P less than .0001).

There was a safety cost for the greater efficacy of BPA. This included a higher proportion of patients in the BPA group with at least one serious adverse event (50% vs. 26%) and at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (14% vs. 9%). No patient in either arm discontinued therapy because of treatment-related adverse events, and there were no deaths over the course of the study in either arm.

The study has included a 6-month extension to allow patients symptomatic on their originally assigned therapy to switch to the opposite treatment. Results of the extension are not yet available, but Dr. Jaïs said that these data might provide insight about which therapy to start first.

“It was very important to do this trial,” according to the ERS-invited discussant, Martin Kolb, MD, of the Firestone Institute of Respiratory Health, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. The most recent World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension identified BPA and medical therapy as reasonable choices in inoperable CTEPH, but Dr. Kolb said there has been an unmet need for comparative data.

“This was a very strong study that demonstrated a powerful impact for both interventions on pulmonary vascular resistance,” Dr. Kolb said, adding that, although BPA proved to be more effective, clinicians consider the greater risk of adverse events. He believes further work needs to be done in identifying the best candidates for each and to explore hybrid approaches.

“What do you think about doing these sequentially so that you lower the pressure first with medical therapy and then go in with the balloon?” Dr. Kolb asked Dr. Jaïs during a discussion that followed presentation of the RACE results.

Dr. Jaïs conceded this point, noting that the treatments have different targets and might be complementary.

“We plan to do a study like this in the future,” Dr. Jaïs said.

Dr. Jaïs reported no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – A placebo-controlled trial has confirmed that amoxicillin/clavulanate is beneficial for resolution of acute exacerbations in nonsevere bronchiectasis while also demonstrating a greater relative effect than azithromycin, based on data presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We now have robust data with which to support our guidelines,” reported Vikas Goyal, MD, of the Children’s Health Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The study addresses a knowledge gap. Antibiotics are already recommended by many guidelines for treatment of acute exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis, but Dr. Goyal said that no controlled trials have ever been performed in this age group to confirm superiority to placebo.

In this multicenter study, called BEST-1, 197 children with bronchiectasis were randomized at the start of an exacerbation to placebo, 45 mg/kg per day of amoxicillin/clavulanate, or 5 mg/kg per day of azithromycin. To maintain blinding, patients in the active treatment groups received a dummy for the opposite antibiotic while patients on placebo received dummies for both active agents.

For the primary outcome, 65% of children randomized to amoxicillin/clavulanate had resolution of their exacerbation by day 14 versus 61% of those randomized to azithromycin and 43% of those randomized to placebo. On the basis of relative risk for reaching this end point, the outcome was superior to placebo for amoxicillin/clavulanate (RR, 1.5; P = .015).

Although the relative risk for azithromycin (RR, 1.4; P = .042) was only slightly lower, it did not reach a prespecified level of significance set at P = .025. Dr. Goyal did report that the resolution rate at 14 days in the placebo group was “higher than expected.”

In this trial, 53% of the 154 children who were tested for respiratory viruses with nasal swabs on day 1 of the exacerbation were found to have respiratory viruses. Of these viruses, rhinovirus was the most common, according to Dr. Goyal, whose data were published just prior to his presentation (Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:791-801).

The median durations of the exacerbations were 7 days, 8 days, and 10 days for those treated with amoxicillin/clavulanate, azithromycin, and placebo, respectively. The difference between amoxicillin/clavulanate and placebo, but not that between azithromycin and placebo, reached statistical significance, Dr. Goyal said.

There were no between group differences in the time to next exacerbation.

In discussing limitations of this study, Dr. Goyal pointed out that the optimal doses of amoxicillin/clavulanate or azithromycin have never been established for the treatment of exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis. He noted that some infectious disease specialists have advocated higher doses of both than those employed in this trial, but dose-ranging studies have never been conducted in this age group.

In this study, adverse events were less common on azithromycin than amoxicillin/clavulanate (21% vs. 30%), but none were severe, according to Dr. Goyal. He said treatment with azithromycin was associated with increased macrolide-resistant bacteria.

On the basis of these data, Dr. Goyal concluded that amoxicillin/clavulanate should remain, as already specified in some guidelines, the standard first-line therapy for nonsevere exacerbations in nonhospitalized children with bronchiectasis. He recommended reserving azithromycin as an alternative therapy.

Dr. Goyal reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goyal V et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:791-801.

MADRID – A placebo-controlled trial has confirmed that amoxicillin/clavulanate is beneficial for resolution of acute exacerbations in nonsevere bronchiectasis while also demonstrating a greater relative effect than azithromycin, based on data presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We now have robust data with which to support our guidelines,” reported Vikas Goyal, MD, of the Children’s Health Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The study addresses a knowledge gap. Antibiotics are already recommended by many guidelines for treatment of acute exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis, but Dr. Goyal said that no controlled trials have ever been performed in this age group to confirm superiority to placebo.

In this multicenter study, called BEST-1, 197 children with bronchiectasis were randomized at the start of an exacerbation to placebo, 45 mg/kg per day of amoxicillin/clavulanate, or 5 mg/kg per day of azithromycin. To maintain blinding, patients in the active treatment groups received a dummy for the opposite antibiotic while patients on placebo received dummies for both active agents.

For the primary outcome, 65% of children randomized to amoxicillin/clavulanate had resolution of their exacerbation by day 14 versus 61% of those randomized to azithromycin and 43% of those randomized to placebo. On the basis of relative risk for reaching this end point, the outcome was superior to placebo for amoxicillin/clavulanate (RR, 1.5; P = .015).

Although the relative risk for azithromycin (RR, 1.4; P = .042) was only slightly lower, it did not reach a prespecified level of significance set at P = .025. Dr. Goyal did report that the resolution rate at 14 days in the placebo group was “higher than expected.”

In this trial, 53% of the 154 children who were tested for respiratory viruses with nasal swabs on day 1 of the exacerbation were found to have respiratory viruses. Of these viruses, rhinovirus was the most common, according to Dr. Goyal, whose data were published just prior to his presentation (Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:791-801).

The median durations of the exacerbations were 7 days, 8 days, and 10 days for those treated with amoxicillin/clavulanate, azithromycin, and placebo, respectively. The difference between amoxicillin/clavulanate and placebo, but not that between azithromycin and placebo, reached statistical significance, Dr. Goyal said.

There were no between group differences in the time to next exacerbation.

In discussing limitations of this study, Dr. Goyal pointed out that the optimal doses of amoxicillin/clavulanate or azithromycin have never been established for the treatment of exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis. He noted that some infectious disease specialists have advocated higher doses of both than those employed in this trial, but dose-ranging studies have never been conducted in this age group.

In this study, adverse events were less common on azithromycin than amoxicillin/clavulanate (21% vs. 30%), but none were severe, according to Dr. Goyal. He said treatment with azithromycin was associated with increased macrolide-resistant bacteria.

On the basis of these data, Dr. Goyal concluded that amoxicillin/clavulanate should remain, as already specified in some guidelines, the standard first-line therapy for nonsevere exacerbations in nonhospitalized children with bronchiectasis. He recommended reserving azithromycin as an alternative therapy.

Dr. Goyal reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goyal V et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:791-801.

MADRID – A placebo-controlled trial has confirmed that amoxicillin/clavulanate is beneficial for resolution of acute exacerbations in nonsevere bronchiectasis while also demonstrating a greater relative effect than azithromycin, based on data presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We now have robust data with which to support our guidelines,” reported Vikas Goyal, MD, of the Children’s Health Clinical Unit, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The study addresses a knowledge gap. Antibiotics are already recommended by many guidelines for treatment of acute exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis, but Dr. Goyal said that no controlled trials have ever been performed in this age group to confirm superiority to placebo.

In this multicenter study, called BEST-1, 197 children with bronchiectasis were randomized at the start of an exacerbation to placebo, 45 mg/kg per day of amoxicillin/clavulanate, or 5 mg/kg per day of azithromycin. To maintain blinding, patients in the active treatment groups received a dummy for the opposite antibiotic while patients on placebo received dummies for both active agents.

For the primary outcome, 65% of children randomized to amoxicillin/clavulanate had resolution of their exacerbation by day 14 versus 61% of those randomized to azithromycin and 43% of those randomized to placebo. On the basis of relative risk for reaching this end point, the outcome was superior to placebo for amoxicillin/clavulanate (RR, 1.5; P = .015).

Although the relative risk for azithromycin (RR, 1.4; P = .042) was only slightly lower, it did not reach a prespecified level of significance set at P = .025. Dr. Goyal did report that the resolution rate at 14 days in the placebo group was “higher than expected.”

In this trial, 53% of the 154 children who were tested for respiratory viruses with nasal swabs on day 1 of the exacerbation were found to have respiratory viruses. Of these viruses, rhinovirus was the most common, according to Dr. Goyal, whose data were published just prior to his presentation (Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:791-801).

The median durations of the exacerbations were 7 days, 8 days, and 10 days for those treated with amoxicillin/clavulanate, azithromycin, and placebo, respectively. The difference between amoxicillin/clavulanate and placebo, but not that between azithromycin and placebo, reached statistical significance, Dr. Goyal said.

There were no between group differences in the time to next exacerbation.

In discussing limitations of this study, Dr. Goyal pointed out that the optimal doses of amoxicillin/clavulanate or azithromycin have never been established for the treatment of exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis. He noted that some infectious disease specialists have advocated higher doses of both than those employed in this trial, but dose-ranging studies have never been conducted in this age group.

In this study, adverse events were less common on azithromycin than amoxicillin/clavulanate (21% vs. 30%), but none were severe, according to Dr. Goyal. He said treatment with azithromycin was associated with increased macrolide-resistant bacteria.

On the basis of these data, Dr. Goyal concluded that amoxicillin/clavulanate should remain, as already specified in some guidelines, the standard first-line therapy for nonsevere exacerbations in nonhospitalized children with bronchiectasis. He recommended reserving azithromycin as an alternative therapy.

Dr. Goyal reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goyal V et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:791-801.

MADRID – In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitus with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the monoclonal antibody dupilumab is effective for shrinking the polyps, improving symptoms, and reducing the need for systemic corticosteroids and surgery, according to results of two phase 3 studies reported together at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Dupilumab improved all of the disease components, and the improvement was observed in most of them at the first assessment,” reported Jorge F. Máspero, MD, research director, Fundacion Cidea, Buenos Aires.

The data were drawn from multicenter phase 3 trials called LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52. Both included stratifications for asthma and for NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (ERD), which are common comorbidities. Findings of the two studies were published together just prior to Dr. Máspero’s presentation at the ERS (Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1).

For the coprimary end point of endoscopic nasal polyp score (NSP), the reductions were 2.06 and 1.8 at 24 weeks from baseline (both P less than .0001) in SINUS-24 and SINUS-52, respectively. For the nasal congestion or obstruction score, another primary end point, the reductions were 0.89 and 0.87, respectively (both P less than .0001).

There were also major improvements at week 24 on secondary end points, including the Lund-McKay CT score for staging of CRSwNP (P less than .0001), total symptom score (P less than .0001), the UPSIT test for smell (P less than .0001), and SNOT-22 (P less than .0001), a quality of life instrument specific for nasal and sinus diseases.

When these outcomes were graphed, curves for the dupilumab and placebo arms had already separated by 4 weeks, “and then we see the dupilumab patients keep getting better over the course of follow-up, and the effect was seen regardless of comorbidities,” said Dr. Máspero, referring to concomitant asthma or ERD.

The SINUS-24 trial randomly assigned 276 CRSwNP patients to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo, each given subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The SINUS-52 trial, which randomized 448 patients, included the same two arms plus a third arm in which patients also received 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then 300 mg every month for an additional 26 weeks.

In a pooled analysis of these trials, patients randomized to dupilumab had a 78% reduction in likelihood of receiving systemic corticosteroids and a 79% reduction in being referred for surgery relative to placebo, Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin-4, IL-5, and IL-13, was well tolerated. Among the most common adverse events, there were lower rates of headache (9% vs. 7%), epistaxis (7% vs. 6%), and injection-site erythema (8% vs. 6%) in the dupilumab and placebo arms, respectively, but the rate of serious adverse events (6% vs. 3%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5% vs. 3%) were only slightly higher in the active treatment group.

Both trials, which required a bilateral baseline NPS score of 5.0 for entry, recruited a population with relatively severe CRSwNP, according to Dr. Máspero. Of the 724 patients, 204 had ERD.

A restored sense of smell was one of the contributors to an improvement in quality of life.

“The sense of smell improves very quickly after starting dupilumab. Patients reported results within 2 weeks, and there was an almost complete lack of improvement in the placebo group,” Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab is already indicated for the treatment of CRSwNP, but this study confirms a major effect on polyp size, sinus congestion, and symptoms irrespective of the presence of common comorbidities affecting the airways, Dr. Máspero said.

Dr. Maspero reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: (Bachert C et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1.

MADRID – In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitus with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the monoclonal antibody dupilumab is effective for shrinking the polyps, improving symptoms, and reducing the need for systemic corticosteroids and surgery, according to results of two phase 3 studies reported together at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Dupilumab improved all of the disease components, and the improvement was observed in most of them at the first assessment,” reported Jorge F. Máspero, MD, research director, Fundacion Cidea, Buenos Aires.

The data were drawn from multicenter phase 3 trials called LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52. Both included stratifications for asthma and for NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (ERD), which are common comorbidities. Findings of the two studies were published together just prior to Dr. Máspero’s presentation at the ERS (Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1).

For the coprimary end point of endoscopic nasal polyp score (NSP), the reductions were 2.06 and 1.8 at 24 weeks from baseline (both P less than .0001) in SINUS-24 and SINUS-52, respectively. For the nasal congestion or obstruction score, another primary end point, the reductions were 0.89 and 0.87, respectively (both P less than .0001).

There were also major improvements at week 24 on secondary end points, including the Lund-McKay CT score for staging of CRSwNP (P less than .0001), total symptom score (P less than .0001), the UPSIT test for smell (P less than .0001), and SNOT-22 (P less than .0001), a quality of life instrument specific for nasal and sinus diseases.

When these outcomes were graphed, curves for the dupilumab and placebo arms had already separated by 4 weeks, “and then we see the dupilumab patients keep getting better over the course of follow-up, and the effect was seen regardless of comorbidities,” said Dr. Máspero, referring to concomitant asthma or ERD.

The SINUS-24 trial randomly assigned 276 CRSwNP patients to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo, each given subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The SINUS-52 trial, which randomized 448 patients, included the same two arms plus a third arm in which patients also received 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then 300 mg every month for an additional 26 weeks.

In a pooled analysis of these trials, patients randomized to dupilumab had a 78% reduction in likelihood of receiving systemic corticosteroids and a 79% reduction in being referred for surgery relative to placebo, Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin-4, IL-5, and IL-13, was well tolerated. Among the most common adverse events, there were lower rates of headache (9% vs. 7%), epistaxis (7% vs. 6%), and injection-site erythema (8% vs. 6%) in the dupilumab and placebo arms, respectively, but the rate of serious adverse events (6% vs. 3%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5% vs. 3%) were only slightly higher in the active treatment group.

Both trials, which required a bilateral baseline NPS score of 5.0 for entry, recruited a population with relatively severe CRSwNP, according to Dr. Máspero. Of the 724 patients, 204 had ERD.

A restored sense of smell was one of the contributors to an improvement in quality of life.

“The sense of smell improves very quickly after starting dupilumab. Patients reported results within 2 weeks, and there was an almost complete lack of improvement in the placebo group,” Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab is already indicated for the treatment of CRSwNP, but this study confirms a major effect on polyp size, sinus congestion, and symptoms irrespective of the presence of common comorbidities affecting the airways, Dr. Máspero said.

Dr. Maspero reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: (Bachert C et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1.

MADRID – In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitus with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), the monoclonal antibody dupilumab is effective for shrinking the polyps, improving symptoms, and reducing the need for systemic corticosteroids and surgery, according to results of two phase 3 studies reported together at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“Dupilumab improved all of the disease components, and the improvement was observed in most of them at the first assessment,” reported Jorge F. Máspero, MD, research director, Fundacion Cidea, Buenos Aires.

The data were drawn from multicenter phase 3 trials called LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52. Both included stratifications for asthma and for NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (ERD), which are common comorbidities. Findings of the two studies were published together just prior to Dr. Máspero’s presentation at the ERS (Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1).

For the coprimary end point of endoscopic nasal polyp score (NSP), the reductions were 2.06 and 1.8 at 24 weeks from baseline (both P less than .0001) in SINUS-24 and SINUS-52, respectively. For the nasal congestion or obstruction score, another primary end point, the reductions were 0.89 and 0.87, respectively (both P less than .0001).

There were also major improvements at week 24 on secondary end points, including the Lund-McKay CT score for staging of CRSwNP (P less than .0001), total symptom score (P less than .0001), the UPSIT test for smell (P less than .0001), and SNOT-22 (P less than .0001), a quality of life instrument specific for nasal and sinus diseases.

When these outcomes were graphed, curves for the dupilumab and placebo arms had already separated by 4 weeks, “and then we see the dupilumab patients keep getting better over the course of follow-up, and the effect was seen regardless of comorbidities,” said Dr. Máspero, referring to concomitant asthma or ERD.

The SINUS-24 trial randomly assigned 276 CRSwNP patients to 300 mg dupilumab or placebo, each given subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The SINUS-52 trial, which randomized 448 patients, included the same two arms plus a third arm in which patients also received 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then 300 mg every month for an additional 26 weeks.

In a pooled analysis of these trials, patients randomized to dupilumab had a 78% reduction in likelihood of receiving systemic corticosteroids and a 79% reduction in being referred for surgery relative to placebo, Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin-4, IL-5, and IL-13, was well tolerated. Among the most common adverse events, there were lower rates of headache (9% vs. 7%), epistaxis (7% vs. 6%), and injection-site erythema (8% vs. 6%) in the dupilumab and placebo arms, respectively, but the rate of serious adverse events (6% vs. 3%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5% vs. 3%) were only slightly higher in the active treatment group.

Both trials, which required a bilateral baseline NPS score of 5.0 for entry, recruited a population with relatively severe CRSwNP, according to Dr. Máspero. Of the 724 patients, 204 had ERD.

A restored sense of smell was one of the contributors to an improvement in quality of life.

“The sense of smell improves very quickly after starting dupilumab. Patients reported results within 2 weeks, and there was an almost complete lack of improvement in the placebo group,” Dr. Máspero reported.

Dupilumab is already indicated for the treatment of CRSwNP, but this study confirms a major effect on polyp size, sinus congestion, and symptoms irrespective of the presence of common comorbidities affecting the airways, Dr. Máspero said.

Dr. Maspero reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: (Bachert C et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1.

MADRID – In patients managed on mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit following cardiac surgery, a fully automated system provides more reliable ventilatory support than highly experienced ICU nurses, suggest results of a randomized trial.

The study’s control group received usual care, which means that nurses adjusted mechanical ventilation manually in response to respiratory rate, tidal volume, positive end-respiratory pressure (PEEP), and other factors to maintain ventilation within parameters associated with safe respiration. The experimental group was managed with a fully automated closed-loop system to make these adjustments without any nurse intervention.

For those in the experimental group “the proportion of time in the optimal zone was increased and the proportion of time in the unsafe zone was decreased” relative to those randomized to conventional nursing care, Marcus J. Schultz, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Conducted at a hospital with an experienced ICU staff, the study had a control arm that was managed by “dedicated nurses who, I can tell you, are very eager to provide the best level of care possible,” said Dr. Schultz, professor of experimental intensive care, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands..

The investigator-initiated POSITiVE trial randomized 220 cardiac surgery patients scheduled to receive postoperative mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Exclusions included those with class III or higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or a history of lung surgery.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of time spent in an optimal zone, an acceptable zone, or a dangerous zone of ventilation based on predefined values for tidal volume, maximum airway pressure, end-tidal CO₂, and oxygen saturation (SpO₂).

The greatest between-group difference was seen in the proportion of time spent in the optimal zone. This climbed from approximately 35% in the control arm to slightly more than 70% in the experimental arm, a significant difference. The proportion of time in the dangerous zone was reduced from approximately 6% in the control arm to 3% in the automated arm. On average nurse-managed patients spent nearly 60% of the time in the acceptable zone versus less than 30% of those in the automated experimental arm.

A heat map using green, yellow, and red to represent optimal, acceptable, and dangerous zones, respectively, for individual participants in the trial provided a more stark global impression. For the control group, the heat map was primarily yellow with scattered dashes of green and red. For the experimental group, the map was primarily green with dashes of yellow and a much smaller number of red dashes relative to the control group.

In addition, the time to spontaneous breathing was 38% shorter for those randomized to automated ventilation than to conventional care, a significant difference.

There are now many devices marketed for automated ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz. The device used in this study was the proprietary INTELLiVENT-ASV system, marketed by Hamilton Medical, which was selected based on prior satisfactory experience. Although not unique, this system has sophisticated software to adjust ventilation to reach targets set by the clinician on the basis of information it is receiving from physiologic sensors for such variables as respiratory rate, tidal volume, and inspiratory pressure.

“It is frequently adjusting the PEEP levels to reach the lowest driving pressure,” said Dr. Schultz. Among its many other features, it also “gives spontaneous breathing trials automatically.”

Uncomplicated patients were selected purposefully to test this system, but Dr. Schultz said that a second trial, called POSITiVE 2, is now being planned that will enroll more complex patients. Keeping complex patients within the optimal zone as defined by tidal volume and other critical variables has the potential to reduce the lung damage that is known to occur when these are not optimized.

“Applying safe ventilatory support in clinical practice remains a serious challenge and is extremely time consuming,” Dr. Schultz said. He reported that fully automated ventilation appears to be reliable, and “it takes out the human factor” in regard to diligence in monitoring and potential for error.

Overall, these results support the potential for a fully automated system to improve optimal ventilatory support, reduce risk of lung injury, and reduce staffing required for monitoring of mechanical ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz.

Relative costs were not evaluated in this analysis, but might be another factor relevant to the value of fully automated ventilation in ICU patients.
 

MADRID – In patients managed on mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit following cardiac surgery, a fully automated system provides more reliable ventilatory support than highly experienced ICU nurses, suggest results of a randomized trial.

The study’s control group received usual care, which means that nurses adjusted mechanical ventilation manually in response to respiratory rate, tidal volume, positive end-respiratory pressure (PEEP), and other factors to maintain ventilation within parameters associated with safe respiration. The experimental group was managed with a fully automated closed-loop system to make these adjustments without any nurse intervention.

For those in the experimental group “the proportion of time in the optimal zone was increased and the proportion of time in the unsafe zone was decreased” relative to those randomized to conventional nursing care, Marcus J. Schultz, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Conducted at a hospital with an experienced ICU staff, the study had a control arm that was managed by “dedicated nurses who, I can tell you, are very eager to provide the best level of care possible,” said Dr. Schultz, professor of experimental intensive care, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands..

The investigator-initiated POSITiVE trial randomized 220 cardiac surgery patients scheduled to receive postoperative mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Exclusions included those with class III or higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or a history of lung surgery.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of time spent in an optimal zone, an acceptable zone, or a dangerous zone of ventilation based on predefined values for tidal volume, maximum airway pressure, end-tidal CO₂, and oxygen saturation (SpO₂).

The greatest between-group difference was seen in the proportion of time spent in the optimal zone. This climbed from approximately 35% in the control arm to slightly more than 70% in the experimental arm, a significant difference. The proportion of time in the dangerous zone was reduced from approximately 6% in the control arm to 3% in the automated arm. On average nurse-managed patients spent nearly 60% of the time in the acceptable zone versus less than 30% of those in the automated experimental arm.

A heat map using green, yellow, and red to represent optimal, acceptable, and dangerous zones, respectively, for individual participants in the trial provided a more stark global impression. For the control group, the heat map was primarily yellow with scattered dashes of green and red. For the experimental group, the map was primarily green with dashes of yellow and a much smaller number of red dashes relative to the control group.

In addition, the time to spontaneous breathing was 38% shorter for those randomized to automated ventilation than to conventional care, a significant difference.

There are now many devices marketed for automated ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz. The device used in this study was the proprietary INTELLiVENT-ASV system, marketed by Hamilton Medical, which was selected based on prior satisfactory experience. Although not unique, this system has sophisticated software to adjust ventilation to reach targets set by the clinician on the basis of information it is receiving from physiologic sensors for such variables as respiratory rate, tidal volume, and inspiratory pressure.

“It is frequently adjusting the PEEP levels to reach the lowest driving pressure,” said Dr. Schultz. Among its many other features, it also “gives spontaneous breathing trials automatically.”

Uncomplicated patients were selected purposefully to test this system, but Dr. Schultz said that a second trial, called POSITiVE 2, is now being planned that will enroll more complex patients. Keeping complex patients within the optimal zone as defined by tidal volume and other critical variables has the potential to reduce the lung damage that is known to occur when these are not optimized.

“Applying safe ventilatory support in clinical practice remains a serious challenge and is extremely time consuming,” Dr. Schultz said. He reported that fully automated ventilation appears to be reliable, and “it takes out the human factor” in regard to diligence in monitoring and potential for error.

Overall, these results support the potential for a fully automated system to improve optimal ventilatory support, reduce risk of lung injury, and reduce staffing required for monitoring of mechanical ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz.

Relative costs were not evaluated in this analysis, but might be another factor relevant to the value of fully automated ventilation in ICU patients.
 

MADRID – In patients managed on mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit following cardiac surgery, a fully automated system provides more reliable ventilatory support than highly experienced ICU nurses, suggest results of a randomized trial.

The study’s control group received usual care, which means that nurses adjusted mechanical ventilation manually in response to respiratory rate, tidal volume, positive end-respiratory pressure (PEEP), and other factors to maintain ventilation within parameters associated with safe respiration. The experimental group was managed with a fully automated closed-loop system to make these adjustments without any nurse intervention.

For those in the experimental group “the proportion of time in the optimal zone was increased and the proportion of time in the unsafe zone was decreased” relative to those randomized to conventional nursing care, Marcus J. Schultz, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Conducted at a hospital with an experienced ICU staff, the study had a control arm that was managed by “dedicated nurses who, I can tell you, are very eager to provide the best level of care possible,” said Dr. Schultz, professor of experimental intensive care, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands..

The investigator-initiated POSITiVE trial randomized 220 cardiac surgery patients scheduled to receive postoperative mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Exclusions included those with class III or higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or a history of lung surgery.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of time spent in an optimal zone, an acceptable zone, or a dangerous zone of ventilation based on predefined values for tidal volume, maximum airway pressure, end-tidal CO₂, and oxygen saturation (SpO₂).

The greatest between-group difference was seen in the proportion of time spent in the optimal zone. This climbed from approximately 35% in the control arm to slightly more than 70% in the experimental arm, a significant difference. The proportion of time in the dangerous zone was reduced from approximately 6% in the control arm to 3% in the automated arm. On average nurse-managed patients spent nearly 60% of the time in the acceptable zone versus less than 30% of those in the automated experimental arm.

A heat map using green, yellow, and red to represent optimal, acceptable, and dangerous zones, respectively, for individual participants in the trial provided a more stark global impression. For the control group, the heat map was primarily yellow with scattered dashes of green and red. For the experimental group, the map was primarily green with dashes of yellow and a much smaller number of red dashes relative to the control group.

In addition, the time to spontaneous breathing was 38% shorter for those randomized to automated ventilation than to conventional care, a significant difference.

There are now many devices marketed for automated ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz. The device used in this study was the proprietary INTELLiVENT-ASV system, marketed by Hamilton Medical, which was selected based on prior satisfactory experience. Although not unique, this system has sophisticated software to adjust ventilation to reach targets set by the clinician on the basis of information it is receiving from physiologic sensors for such variables as respiratory rate, tidal volume, and inspiratory pressure.

“It is frequently adjusting the PEEP levels to reach the lowest driving pressure,” said Dr. Schultz. Among its many other features, it also “gives spontaneous breathing trials automatically.”

Uncomplicated patients were selected purposefully to test this system, but Dr. Schultz said that a second trial, called POSITiVE 2, is now being planned that will enroll more complex patients. Keeping complex patients within the optimal zone as defined by tidal volume and other critical variables has the potential to reduce the lung damage that is known to occur when these are not optimized.

“Applying safe ventilatory support in clinical practice remains a serious challenge and is extremely time consuming,” Dr. Schultz said. He reported that fully automated ventilation appears to be reliable, and “it takes out the human factor” in regard to diligence in monitoring and potential for error.

Overall, these results support the potential for a fully automated system to improve optimal ventilatory support, reduce risk of lung injury, and reduce staffing required for monitoring of mechanical ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz.

Relative costs were not evaluated in this analysis, but might be another factor relevant to the value of fully automated ventilation in ICU patients.
 

MADRID – Low-dose azithromycin prophylaxis significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with primary antibody deficiency relative to placebo, according to a randomized multicenter phase 2 trial.

The study results support routine use of low-dose azithromycin in patients with primary antibody deficiency, according to Cinzia Milito, MD, PhD, department of molecular medicine, Sapienza University, Rome. Perhaps more importantly, the long-term benefits might be even greater.

“In patients with primary antibody deficiency, the respiratory tract is the major target of acute infections, leading to inflammation, increased airway reactivity, and over time to tissue remodeling and chronic lung disease,” Dr. Milito said at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society. “Chronic lung disease is a major cause of death in this population.”

In this study 89 patients with primary antibody deficiency were randomized at seven centers in Italy to 250 mg per day of azithromycin or placebo administered on three consecutive days of each week for three years. Patients were maintained on other treatments, such as IgG replacement.

At the end of study, 33 of the 44 patients randomized to azithromycin and 34 of the 45 patients randomized to placebo remained on therapy. When compared for the primary endpoint of exacerbations, the median incidence rates were 3.6 episodes in the azithromycin group and 5.2 episodes in the placebo group, providing a 1.6 episode or 31% relative reduction (P=0.02).

The median number of hospitalizations for any cause, which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly lower in the azithromycin arm (0.1 vs. 0.3 episodes).

In addition, the number of additional courses of antibiotics was significantly lower (2.3 vs. 3.6), and the time to the first course of antibiotic course was significantly longer (181.5 vs. 122.4 days) in the azithromycin group, reported Dr. Milito, whose study is now published (Milito C et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2019;144: 584-593).

“In a six-month washout at the end of the study, the relative advantages seen for azithromycin were lost,” Dr. Milito said.

Quality of life measured with the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire showed an association between low-dose azithromycin prophylaxis and significant improvement in the symptom domain when evaluated during and at the end of the study. Improvement on the Short-Form 36, which was observed one year into the study, was no longer significant at the end of the study.

Azithromycin was well tolerated with no significant differences in the rate of serious adverse events observed between the experimental and control arms of the study. Over the course of the study, however, azithromycin was associated with a significant protective effect against diarrhea (13% vs. 53%) and acute rhinosinusitus (4% vs. 27%).

There was no observed increase in macrolide resistance associated with azithromycin prophylaxis.

Macrolides have been evaluated for preventing progression of several chronic lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis. Like other drugs in its class, “azithromycin, in addition to its antimicrobial effect, has anti-inflammatory properties,” Dr. Milito said. This increases its potential to slow the time to airway damage in patients with primary antibiotic deficiency.

“Chronic lung disease is the result of a vicious cycle that begins with the inflammatory response to infection,” Dr. Milito explained. On the basis of these data, she believes azithromycin “should be considered a valuable addition to usual treatment” for primary antibody deficiencies.
 

SOURCE: EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOCIETY 2019 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

MADRID – Low-dose azithromycin prophylaxis significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with primary antibody deficiency relative to placebo, according to a randomized multicenter phase 2 trial.

The study results support routine use of low-dose azithromycin in patients with primary antibody deficiency, according to Cinzia Milito, MD, PhD, department of molecular medicine, Sapienza University, Rome. Perhaps more importantly, the long-term benefits might be even greater.

“In patients with primary antibody deficiency, the respiratory tract is the major target of acute infections, leading to inflammation, increased airway reactivity, and over time to tissue remodeling and chronic lung disease,” Dr. Milito said at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society. “Chronic lung disease is a major cause of death in this population.”

In this study 89 patients with primary antibody deficiency were randomized at seven centers in Italy to 250 mg per day of azithromycin or placebo administered on three consecutive days of each week for three years. Patients were maintained on other treatments, such as IgG replacement.

At the end of study, 33 of the 44 patients randomized to azithromycin and 34 of the 45 patients randomized to placebo remained on therapy. When compared for the primary endpoint of exacerbations, the median incidence rates were 3.6 episodes in the azithromycin group and 5.2 episodes in the placebo group, providing a 1.6 episode or 31% relative reduction (P=0.02).

The median number of hospitalizations for any cause, which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly lower in the azithromycin arm (0.1 vs. 0.3 episodes).

In addition, the number of additional courses of antibiotics was significantly lower (2.3 vs. 3.6), and the time to the first course of antibiotic course was significantly longer (181.5 vs. 122.4 days) in the azithromycin group, reported Dr. Milito, whose study is now published (Milito C et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2019;144: 584-593).

“In a six-month washout at the end of the study, the relative advantages seen for azithromycin were lost,” Dr. Milito said.

Quality of life measured with the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire showed an association between low-dose azithromycin prophylaxis and significant improvement in the symptom domain when evaluated during and at the end of the study. Improvement on the Short-Form 36, which was observed one year into the study, was no longer significant at the end of the study.

Azithromycin was well tolerated with no significant differences in the rate of serious adverse events observed between the experimental and control arms of the study. Over the course of the study, however, azithromycin was associated with a significant protective effect against diarrhea (13% vs. 53%) and acute rhinosinusitus (4% vs. 27%).

There was no observed increase in macrolide resistance associated with azithromycin prophylaxis.

Macrolides have been evaluated for preventing progression of several chronic lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis. Like other drugs in its class, “azithromycin, in addition to its antimicrobial effect, has anti-inflammatory properties,” Dr. Milito said. This increases its potential to slow the time to airway damage in patients with primary antibiotic deficiency.

“Chronic lung disease is the result of a vicious cycle that begins with the inflammatory response to infection,” Dr. Milito explained. On the basis of these data, she believes azithromycin “should be considered a valuable addition to usual treatment” for primary antibody deficiencies.
 

SOURCE: EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOCIETY 2019 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

MADRID – Low-dose azithromycin prophylaxis significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with primary antibody deficiency relative to placebo, according to a randomized multicenter phase 2 trial.

The study results support routine use of low-dose azithromycin in patients with primary antibody deficiency, according to Cinzia Milito, MD, PhD, department of molecular medicine, Sapienza University, Rome. Perhaps more importantly, the long-term benefits might be even greater.

“In patients with primary antibody deficiency, the respiratory tract is the major target of acute infections, leading to inflammation, increased airway reactivity, and over time to tissue remodeling and chronic lung disease,” Dr. Milito said at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society. “Chronic lung disease is a major cause of death in this population.”

In this study 89 patients with primary antibody deficiency were randomized at seven centers in Italy to 250 mg per day of azithromycin or placebo administered on three consecutive days of each week for three years. Patients were maintained on other treatments, such as IgG replacement.

At the end of study, 33 of the 44 patients randomized to azithromycin and 34 of the 45 patients randomized to placebo remained on therapy. When compared for the primary endpoint of exacerbations, the median incidence rates were 3.6 episodes in the azithromycin group and 5.2 episodes in the placebo group, providing a 1.6 episode or 31% relative reduction (P=0.02).

The median number of hospitalizations for any cause, which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly lower in the azithromycin arm (0.1 vs. 0.3 episodes).

In addition, the number of additional courses of antibiotics was significantly lower (2.3 vs. 3.6), and the time to the first course of antibiotic course was significantly longer (181.5 vs. 122.4 days) in the azithromycin group, reported Dr. Milito, whose study is now published (Milito C et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2019;144: 584-593).

“In a six-month washout at the end of the study, the relative advantages seen for azithromycin were lost,” Dr. Milito said.

Quality of life measured with the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire showed an association between low-dose azithromycin prophylaxis and significant improvement in the symptom domain when evaluated during and at the end of the study. Improvement on the Short-Form 36, which was observed one year into the study, was no longer significant at the end of the study.

Azithromycin was well tolerated with no significant differences in the rate of serious adverse events observed between the experimental and control arms of the study. Over the course of the study, however, azithromycin was associated with a significant protective effect against diarrhea (13% vs. 53%) and acute rhinosinusitus (4% vs. 27%).

There was no observed increase in macrolide resistance associated with azithromycin prophylaxis.

Macrolides have been evaluated for preventing progression of several chronic lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis. Like other drugs in its class, “azithromycin, in addition to its antimicrobial effect, has anti-inflammatory properties,” Dr. Milito said. This increases its potential to slow the time to airway damage in patients with primary antibiotic deficiency.

“Chronic lung disease is the result of a vicious cycle that begins with the inflammatory response to infection,” Dr. Milito explained. On the basis of these data, she believes azithromycin “should be considered a valuable addition to usual treatment” for primary antibody deficiencies.
 

SOURCE: EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOCIETY 2019 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

MADRID – Consistent with previous evidence of higher relative rates of drug delivery, mesh nebulizers offer several advantages over jet nebulizers for treatment of acute asthma in children presenting to an emergency department, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

For the primary outcome of hospital admission, the advantage of the mesh over the jet nebulizer only reached significance when used with a mask, rather than a valve, but trial results overall support the conclusion that the mesh device delivers drug more efficiently, according to Gerald Moody, RRT-NPS, clinical research coordinator at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas.

In this multicenter, single-blinded trial, 217 children presenting to an ED with acute asthma of moderate or greater severity were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment delivered with a mesh device or a jet device. For drug delivery, aerosol masks or mouthpiece valves were permitted and selected at the discretion of the clinician administrating treatment. Masks were used in 80% of cases.

Patients remained in the study until either symptom control was achieved or a decision was reached to advise hospital admission. Patients with complex comorbidities or who had received oral corticosteroids within the previous 24 hours were excluded.

For the primary outcome of hospital discharge, the 31% reduction (P = .22) in hospitalization in favor of the mesh nebulizer failed to reach statistical significance. Although the study is likely to have been underpowered, Mr. Moody also pointed out an uneven distribution in severity of disease at baseline. In addition to a significantly higher median asthma score (9.0 vs. 8.0; P = .042) in the mesh nebulizer group, there was also a significantly higher percentage with severe disease (57% vs. 42%; P = .025).

“There were no significant differences in any of the other variables we evaluated, such as age, gender, race, or body mass index,” Mr. Moody reported.

Despite the higher disease burden in the mesh nebulizer group, there was a 48% reduction (P = .03) in hospital admissions among those randomized to the mesh nebulizer when both groups received treatment through a mask.

In addition, those treated with the mask required on average only two treatments before achieving symptom control whether they met criteria for moderate or severe asthma at baseline. The median numbers of treatments in the jet nebulizer group for moderate and severe asthma were 3 and 3.5, respectively.

In previous experimental studies, which ultimately provided the rationale for this trial, the estimated amount of drug reaching the airways with a mesh nebulizer was approximately twice as great as that estimated in the model when delivery was performed with a jet device, according to Mr. Moody.

This study appeared to corroborate that advantage. Both the median doses of albuterol (10 mg vs. 15 mg) and ipratropium (1,000 mcg vs. 1,500 mcg) were significantly lower (P less than .001 for both) among the patients randomized to the mesh nebulizer.

Although the jet nebulizers are widely employed “for their ease of use and low cost,” Mr. Moody characterized mesh nebulizers as an advance in technology. In this study, which Mr. Moody said is the first to evaluate whether the experimental evidence of greater drug delivery efficiency translates into a clinical advantage, the primary endpoint was missed, but Mr. Moody indicated that the overall findings support the potential for a difference.

The ERS-invited discussant on this study, Celeste Michala Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University, expressed a concern that might deserve attention in a larger trial. Based on the premise that more efficient delivery increases drug exposure, she questioned whether it might not also increase risks.

There were no significant treatment-related adverse events reported in either arm of this study, Mr. Moody responded, but he conceded that this is an appropriate focus of attention for future studies.

Mr. Moody reported a financial relationship with Aerogen, which produces the mesh device tested in this trial.

MADRID – Consistent with previous evidence of higher relative rates of drug delivery, mesh nebulizers offer several advantages over jet nebulizers for treatment of acute asthma in children presenting to an emergency department, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

For the primary outcome of hospital admission, the advantage of the mesh over the jet nebulizer only reached significance when used with a mask, rather than a valve, but trial results overall support the conclusion that the mesh device delivers drug more efficiently, according to Gerald Moody, RRT-NPS, clinical research coordinator at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas.

In this multicenter, single-blinded trial, 217 children presenting to an ED with acute asthma of moderate or greater severity were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment delivered with a mesh device or a jet device. For drug delivery, aerosol masks or mouthpiece valves were permitted and selected at the discretion of the clinician administrating treatment. Masks were used in 80% of cases.

Patients remained in the study until either symptom control was achieved or a decision was reached to advise hospital admission. Patients with complex comorbidities or who had received oral corticosteroids within the previous 24 hours were excluded.

For the primary outcome of hospital discharge, the 31% reduction (P = .22) in hospitalization in favor of the mesh nebulizer failed to reach statistical significance. Although the study is likely to have been underpowered, Mr. Moody also pointed out an uneven distribution in severity of disease at baseline. In addition to a significantly higher median asthma score (9.0 vs. 8.0; P = .042) in the mesh nebulizer group, there was also a significantly higher percentage with severe disease (57% vs. 42%; P = .025).

“There were no significant differences in any of the other variables we evaluated, such as age, gender, race, or body mass index,” Mr. Moody reported.

Despite the higher disease burden in the mesh nebulizer group, there was a 48% reduction (P = .03) in hospital admissions among those randomized to the mesh nebulizer when both groups received treatment through a mask.

In addition, those treated with the mask required on average only two treatments before achieving symptom control whether they met criteria for moderate or severe asthma at baseline. The median numbers of treatments in the jet nebulizer group for moderate and severe asthma were 3 and 3.5, respectively.

In previous experimental studies, which ultimately provided the rationale for this trial, the estimated amount of drug reaching the airways with a mesh nebulizer was approximately twice as great as that estimated in the model when delivery was performed with a jet device, according to Mr. Moody.

This study appeared to corroborate that advantage. Both the median doses of albuterol (10 mg vs. 15 mg) and ipratropium (1,000 mcg vs. 1,500 mcg) were significantly lower (P less than .001 for both) among the patients randomized to the mesh nebulizer.

Although the jet nebulizers are widely employed “for their ease of use and low cost,” Mr. Moody characterized mesh nebulizers as an advance in technology. In this study, which Mr. Moody said is the first to evaluate whether the experimental evidence of greater drug delivery efficiency translates into a clinical advantage, the primary endpoint was missed, but Mr. Moody indicated that the overall findings support the potential for a difference.

The ERS-invited discussant on this study, Celeste Michala Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University, expressed a concern that might deserve attention in a larger trial. Based on the premise that more efficient delivery increases drug exposure, she questioned whether it might not also increase risks.

There were no significant treatment-related adverse events reported in either arm of this study, Mr. Moody responded, but he conceded that this is an appropriate focus of attention for future studies.

Mr. Moody reported a financial relationship with Aerogen, which produces the mesh device tested in this trial.

MADRID – Consistent with previous evidence of higher relative rates of drug delivery, mesh nebulizers offer several advantages over jet nebulizers for treatment of acute asthma in children presenting to an emergency department, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

For the primary outcome of hospital admission, the advantage of the mesh over the jet nebulizer only reached significance when used with a mask, rather than a valve, but trial results overall support the conclusion that the mesh device delivers drug more efficiently, according to Gerald Moody, RRT-NPS, clinical research coordinator at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas.

In this multicenter, single-blinded trial, 217 children presenting to an ED with acute asthma of moderate or greater severity were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment delivered with a mesh device or a jet device. For drug delivery, aerosol masks or mouthpiece valves were permitted and selected at the discretion of the clinician administrating treatment. Masks were used in 80% of cases.

Patients remained in the study until either symptom control was achieved or a decision was reached to advise hospital admission. Patients with complex comorbidities or who had received oral corticosteroids within the previous 24 hours were excluded.

For the primary outcome of hospital discharge, the 31% reduction (P = .22) in hospitalization in favor of the mesh nebulizer failed to reach statistical significance. Although the study is likely to have been underpowered, Mr. Moody also pointed out an uneven distribution in severity of disease at baseline. In addition to a significantly higher median asthma score (9.0 vs. 8.0; P = .042) in the mesh nebulizer group, there was also a significantly higher percentage with severe disease (57% vs. 42%; P = .025).

“There were no significant differences in any of the other variables we evaluated, such as age, gender, race, or body mass index,” Mr. Moody reported.

Despite the higher disease burden in the mesh nebulizer group, there was a 48% reduction (P = .03) in hospital admissions among those randomized to the mesh nebulizer when both groups received treatment through a mask.

In addition, those treated with the mask required on average only two treatments before achieving symptom control whether they met criteria for moderate or severe asthma at baseline. The median numbers of treatments in the jet nebulizer group for moderate and severe asthma were 3 and 3.5, respectively.

In previous experimental studies, which ultimately provided the rationale for this trial, the estimated amount of drug reaching the airways with a mesh nebulizer was approximately twice as great as that estimated in the model when delivery was performed with a jet device, according to Mr. Moody.

This study appeared to corroborate that advantage. Both the median doses of albuterol (10 mg vs. 15 mg) and ipratropium (1,000 mcg vs. 1,500 mcg) were significantly lower (P less than .001 for both) among the patients randomized to the mesh nebulizer.

Although the jet nebulizers are widely employed “for their ease of use and low cost,” Mr. Moody characterized mesh nebulizers as an advance in technology. In this study, which Mr. Moody said is the first to evaluate whether the experimental evidence of greater drug delivery efficiency translates into a clinical advantage, the primary endpoint was missed, but Mr. Moody indicated that the overall findings support the potential for a difference.

The ERS-invited discussant on this study, Celeste Michala Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University, expressed a concern that might deserve attention in a larger trial. Based on the premise that more efficient delivery increases drug exposure, she questioned whether it might not also increase risks.

There were no significant treatment-related adverse events reported in either arm of this study, Mr. Moody responded, but he conceded that this is an appropriate focus of attention for future studies.

Mr. Moody reported a financial relationship with Aerogen, which produces the mesh device tested in this trial.

MADRID –  In the context of three previous trials, a new phase 3 trial demonstrates that the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is at least comparable to  maintenance ICS for preventing severe exacerbations in the routine care of patients with mild to moderate asthma, according to a presentation at the 2019 ERS International Congress.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

This “real-world” study, called PRACTICAL, produced results similar to those of the previous three studies. It showed similar or modestly improved efficacy for the as-needed approach in patients enrolled with mild to moderate asthma, according to Joanna Hardy, MD, a research fellow at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington.

Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines identify either of the two strategies tested in this trial as acceptable for patients eligible for step 2 asthma control. This study, as in the three trials published previously, provided reassurance that an as-needed approach is adequate for patients insufficiently adherent to daily maintenance therapy.

In PRACTICAL, the results of which were published just prior to the 2019 ERS Congress (Lancet 2019;394:919-28), 890 patients were randomized to use of a single inhaler containing 200 mcg budesonide plus 6 mcg formoterol as needed for symptoms or to a maintenance regimen with the same dose of budesonide taken twice daily. The protocol allowed 250 mcg terbutaline as needed for symptom control in the maintenance arm. The patients were followed for 52 weeks.

For the primary endpoint of the per-patient number of severe exacerbations, defined as need for 3 consecutive days of oral corticosteroids or an emergency department visit to receive oral corticosteroids, the as-needed approach reduced the relative risk by 31% (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .049). The per-patient rates of exacerbations for the as-needed and maintenance arms were 0.0119 and 0.172, respectively.

The time to first exacerbation, a secondary endpoint, approached significance in favor of as-needed treatment (HR 0.6; P = .05). There was no difference in asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire or in lung function as measured with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ at any visit or at the end of the study.

Two SYGMA trials (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2), both published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, addressed the same question. Most like PRACTICAL, SYGMA 2 randomized 4,215 patients with mild asthma and found as-needed budesonide/formoterol noninferior to budesonide maintenance for preventing severe exacerbations.

In SYGMA 1, which included an as-needed terbutaline arm, 3,849 patients were randomized. Although as-needed budesonide-formoterol was inferior to budesonide maintenance in that study (but superior to as-needed to terbutaline), the adherence to budesonide maintenance was 78.9%, which Dr. Hardy said does not reflect real-world patient behavior.

“The problem is that we have a lot of data to show that adherence to maintenance asthma therapy in mild asthma is poor,” Dr. Hardy said. In PRACTICAL, all patients were provided with an asthma action plan but no strategies were offered to improve compliance over those employed in usual practice.

In the open-label Novel START trial, published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the question posed was different. In that study, which randomized 675 patients, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was superior to as-needed albuterol for prevention of asthma exacerbations at 52 weeks, the time point employed in all four studies. The results, while confirming the importance of the ICS component, have been generally interpreted as supporting the as-needed therapy in mild asthma.

At the ERS 2019 Congress, one of the moderators of the session in which Dr. Hardy spoke, Guy Brusselle, MD, Ghent (Belgium) University, agreed that the available evidence supports as-needed therapy as a viable strategy in mild asthma, but expressed concern about applying this conclusion to patients who have asthma requiring therapy beyond GINA step 2.

“These data might put patients who need GINA step 3 or 4 therapy at risk of not receiving the maintenance therapy they need for disease control,” Dr. Brusselle said.

In light of the challenge of separating those with moderate from mild asthma, Dr. Brusselle suggested another arm to add to real-world clinical trials attempting to identify the most effective approach.

“The optimal arm might be maintenance budesonide with as-needed ICS/LABA,” Dr. Brusselle said. He explained that even if compliance is low, at least some patients will be receiving a maintenance therapy, and this approach might ultimately offer more benefit than one in which patients do not even consider maintenance.

Dr. Hardy reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID –  In the context of three previous trials, a new phase 3 trial demonstrates that the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is at least comparable to  maintenance ICS for preventing severe exacerbations in the routine care of patients with mild to moderate asthma, according to a presentation at the 2019 ERS International Congress.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

This “real-world” study, called PRACTICAL, produced results similar to those of the previous three studies. It showed similar or modestly improved efficacy for the as-needed approach in patients enrolled with mild to moderate asthma, according to Joanna Hardy, MD, a research fellow at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington.

Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines identify either of the two strategies tested in this trial as acceptable for patients eligible for step 2 asthma control. This study, as in the three trials published previously, provided reassurance that an as-needed approach is adequate for patients insufficiently adherent to daily maintenance therapy.

In PRACTICAL, the results of which were published just prior to the 2019 ERS Congress (Lancet 2019;394:919-28), 890 patients were randomized to use of a single inhaler containing 200 mcg budesonide plus 6 mcg formoterol as needed for symptoms or to a maintenance regimen with the same dose of budesonide taken twice daily. The protocol allowed 250 mcg terbutaline as needed for symptom control in the maintenance arm. The patients were followed for 52 weeks.

For the primary endpoint of the per-patient number of severe exacerbations, defined as need for 3 consecutive days of oral corticosteroids or an emergency department visit to receive oral corticosteroids, the as-needed approach reduced the relative risk by 31% (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .049). The per-patient rates of exacerbations for the as-needed and maintenance arms were 0.0119 and 0.172, respectively.

The time to first exacerbation, a secondary endpoint, approached significance in favor of as-needed treatment (HR 0.6; P = .05). There was no difference in asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire or in lung function as measured with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ at any visit or at the end of the study.

Two SYGMA trials (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2), both published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, addressed the same question. Most like PRACTICAL, SYGMA 2 randomized 4,215 patients with mild asthma and found as-needed budesonide/formoterol noninferior to budesonide maintenance for preventing severe exacerbations.

In SYGMA 1, which included an as-needed terbutaline arm, 3,849 patients were randomized. Although as-needed budesonide-formoterol was inferior to budesonide maintenance in that study (but superior to as-needed to terbutaline), the adherence to budesonide maintenance was 78.9%, which Dr. Hardy said does not reflect real-world patient behavior.

“The problem is that we have a lot of data to show that adherence to maintenance asthma therapy in mild asthma is poor,” Dr. Hardy said. In PRACTICAL, all patients were provided with an asthma action plan but no strategies were offered to improve compliance over those employed in usual practice.

In the open-label Novel START trial, published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the question posed was different. In that study, which randomized 675 patients, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was superior to as-needed albuterol for prevention of asthma exacerbations at 52 weeks, the time point employed in all four studies. The results, while confirming the importance of the ICS component, have been generally interpreted as supporting the as-needed therapy in mild asthma.

At the ERS 2019 Congress, one of the moderators of the session in which Dr. Hardy spoke, Guy Brusselle, MD, Ghent (Belgium) University, agreed that the available evidence supports as-needed therapy as a viable strategy in mild asthma, but expressed concern about applying this conclusion to patients who have asthma requiring therapy beyond GINA step 2.

“These data might put patients who need GINA step 3 or 4 therapy at risk of not receiving the maintenance therapy they need for disease control,” Dr. Brusselle said.

In light of the challenge of separating those with moderate from mild asthma, Dr. Brusselle suggested another arm to add to real-world clinical trials attempting to identify the most effective approach.

“The optimal arm might be maintenance budesonide with as-needed ICS/LABA,” Dr. Brusselle said. He explained that even if compliance is low, at least some patients will be receiving a maintenance therapy, and this approach might ultimately offer more benefit than one in which patients do not even consider maintenance.

Dr. Hardy reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID –  In the context of three previous trials, a new phase 3 trial demonstrates that the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is at least comparable to  maintenance ICS for preventing severe exacerbations in the routine care of patients with mild to moderate asthma, according to a presentation at the 2019 ERS International Congress.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

This “real-world” study, called PRACTICAL, produced results similar to those of the previous three studies. It showed similar or modestly improved efficacy for the as-needed approach in patients enrolled with mild to moderate asthma, according to Joanna Hardy, MD, a research fellow at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington.

Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines identify either of the two strategies tested in this trial as acceptable for patients eligible for step 2 asthma control. This study, as in the three trials published previously, provided reassurance that an as-needed approach is adequate for patients insufficiently adherent to daily maintenance therapy.

In PRACTICAL, the results of which were published just prior to the 2019 ERS Congress (Lancet 2019;394:919-28), 890 patients were randomized to use of a single inhaler containing 200 mcg budesonide plus 6 mcg formoterol as needed for symptoms or to a maintenance regimen with the same dose of budesonide taken twice daily. The protocol allowed 250 mcg terbutaline as needed for symptom control in the maintenance arm. The patients were followed for 52 weeks.

For the primary endpoint of the per-patient number of severe exacerbations, defined as need for 3 consecutive days of oral corticosteroids or an emergency department visit to receive oral corticosteroids, the as-needed approach reduced the relative risk by 31% (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .049). The per-patient rates of exacerbations for the as-needed and maintenance arms were 0.0119 and 0.172, respectively.

The time to first exacerbation, a secondary endpoint, approached significance in favor of as-needed treatment (HR 0.6; P = .05). There was no difference in asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire or in lung function as measured with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ at any visit or at the end of the study.

Two SYGMA trials (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2), both published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, addressed the same question. Most like PRACTICAL, SYGMA 2 randomized 4,215 patients with mild asthma and found as-needed budesonide/formoterol noninferior to budesonide maintenance for preventing severe exacerbations.

In SYGMA 1, which included an as-needed terbutaline arm, 3,849 patients were randomized. Although as-needed budesonide-formoterol was inferior to budesonide maintenance in that study (but superior to as-needed to terbutaline), the adherence to budesonide maintenance was 78.9%, which Dr. Hardy said does not reflect real-world patient behavior.

“The problem is that we have a lot of data to show that adherence to maintenance asthma therapy in mild asthma is poor,” Dr. Hardy said. In PRACTICAL, all patients were provided with an asthma action plan but no strategies were offered to improve compliance over those employed in usual practice.

In the open-label Novel START trial, published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the question posed was different. In that study, which randomized 675 patients, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was superior to as-needed albuterol for prevention of asthma exacerbations at 52 weeks, the time point employed in all four studies. The results, while confirming the importance of the ICS component, have been generally interpreted as supporting the as-needed therapy in mild asthma.

At the ERS 2019 Congress, one of the moderators of the session in which Dr. Hardy spoke, Guy Brusselle, MD, Ghent (Belgium) University, agreed that the available evidence supports as-needed therapy as a viable strategy in mild asthma, but expressed concern about applying this conclusion to patients who have asthma requiring therapy beyond GINA step 2.

“These data might put patients who need GINA step 3 or 4 therapy at risk of not receiving the maintenance therapy they need for disease control,” Dr. Brusselle said.

In light of the challenge of separating those with moderate from mild asthma, Dr. Brusselle suggested another arm to add to real-world clinical trials attempting to identify the most effective approach.

“The optimal arm might be maintenance budesonide with as-needed ICS/LABA,” Dr. Brusselle said. He explained that even if compliance is low, at least some patients will be receiving a maintenance therapy, and this approach might ultimately offer more benefit than one in which patients do not even consider maintenance.

Dr. Hardy reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – Two newly published but previously reported phase 3 trials associated triple therapy in a single inhaler with a 23% reduction (P = .008) in asthma exacerbations relative to a two-drug inhaler, but fresh data from a prespecified analysis presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society has identified those patients most likely to benefit.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Six easily identifiable factors appear to be associated with the most prominent response to treatment and may help in the treatment step-up decision at the point of care,” reported Dave Singh, MD, professor in the division of infection, immunity, and respiratory medicine, University of Manchester (England).

The six factors associated with a lower relative risk (RR) of severe exacerbations were derived from the phase 3 TRIMARIN and TRIGGER trials. The primary results of these trials were presented several months ago at the 2019 American Thoracic Society (ATS) meeting, but the full data were published on the day that Dr. Singh spoke at the ERS.

To identify predictors of response, the pooled analysis of TRIMARIN and TRIGGER was prespecified. Both of these trials, which were similarly designed, compared a single inhaler of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to a single ICS/LABA inhaler.

On the basis of risk for severe exacerbations, greater protection from triple therapy relative to a conventional ICS/LABA inhaler was identified for those with a high degree of reversibility (defined as greater than 400 mL) relative to those with a lower degree (RR, 0.729; P = .024), those with a body mass index less than 25 kg/m² relative to a higher BMI (RR, 0.570; P = .005), those with only one exacerbation in the previous 12 months relative to those with more (RR, 0.731; P = .009), never-smokers relative to those with smoking history (RR, 0.764; P = .013), those younger than age 65 years relative to older (RR, 0.770; P = .17), and males relative to females (RR, 0.651; P = .009).

“This gives us six factors to consider when you are thinking about stepping up to triple therapy and are trying to determine which patients would benefit the most,” Dr. Singh said.

Both the TRIMARIN and the TRIGGER trials were double blind and placebo controlled. In both, the experimental arm was a single inhaler triple therapy of the ICS beclomethasone, the LABA formoterol, and the LAMA glycopyrronium. The control arm was a single inhaler combination of beclomethasone and formoterol. All inhalers were used twice daily.

TRIMARIN, with 171 participating sites in 16 countries, randomized 1,155 patients to the triple-drug inhaler with a moderate dose of ICS (100 mcg) or to the ICS/LABA inhaler. In TRIGGER, with 221 sites in 17 countries, 1,437 patients were randomized to one of three arms. Both the triple-drug inhaler arm and the ICS/LABA arm contained a higher dose of ICS (200 mcg) than in TRIMARIN. In an open-label third arm, patients also received the higher dose of ICS plus LABA and a second inhaler with tiotropium. The formoterol dose in all arms of both studies was 6 mcg.

As reported at the ATS and now published in the Lancet, the reduction in exacerbations on single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant when the data were pooled (even though the reduction in the TRIGGER study fell short of statistical significance). The median improvement in lung function for single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant in both TRIMARIN (57 mL; P = .008) and TRIGGER (73 mL; P = .0025).

In discussing the new pooled analysis of response predictors in TRIMARIN/TRIGGER, the ERS-invited discussant, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, expressed particular interest in reversibility. A positive reversibility test to salbutamol was an entry criterion for both trials, but Dr. Porsbjerg pointed out that a greater response in those with the highest reversibility suggests these patients have a phenotype in which bronchodilation is a more important driver of disease than is inflammation.

While conceding that this was possible, Dr. Singh cautioned that he considers these predictors of response to be “exploratory.” He believes that the TRIMARIN/TRIGGER studies were not designed to tease out the relative importance of mechanisms of asthma in response to the assigned therapies. However, he believes the response predictor analysis is a step in this direction, which might be valuable for better individualizing therapy.

The studies were funded by Chiesi Farmaceutici. Dr. Singh reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Virchow JC et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 30. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32215-9.

MADRID – Two newly published but previously reported phase 3 trials associated triple therapy in a single inhaler with a 23% reduction (P = .008) in asthma exacerbations relative to a two-drug inhaler, but fresh data from a prespecified analysis presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society has identified those patients most likely to benefit.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Six easily identifiable factors appear to be associated with the most prominent response to treatment and may help in the treatment step-up decision at the point of care,” reported Dave Singh, MD, professor in the division of infection, immunity, and respiratory medicine, University of Manchester (England).

The six factors associated with a lower relative risk (RR) of severe exacerbations were derived from the phase 3 TRIMARIN and TRIGGER trials. The primary results of these trials were presented several months ago at the 2019 American Thoracic Society (ATS) meeting, but the full data were published on the day that Dr. Singh spoke at the ERS.

To identify predictors of response, the pooled analysis of TRIMARIN and TRIGGER was prespecified. Both of these trials, which were similarly designed, compared a single inhaler of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to a single ICS/LABA inhaler.

On the basis of risk for severe exacerbations, greater protection from triple therapy relative to a conventional ICS/LABA inhaler was identified for those with a high degree of reversibility (defined as greater than 400 mL) relative to those with a lower degree (RR, 0.729; P = .024), those with a body mass index less than 25 kg/m² relative to a higher BMI (RR, 0.570; P = .005), those with only one exacerbation in the previous 12 months relative to those with more (RR, 0.731; P = .009), never-smokers relative to those with smoking history (RR, 0.764; P = .013), those younger than age 65 years relative to older (RR, 0.770; P = .17), and males relative to females (RR, 0.651; P = .009).

“This gives us six factors to consider when you are thinking about stepping up to triple therapy and are trying to determine which patients would benefit the most,” Dr. Singh said.

Both the TRIMARIN and the TRIGGER trials were double blind and placebo controlled. In both, the experimental arm was a single inhaler triple therapy of the ICS beclomethasone, the LABA formoterol, and the LAMA glycopyrronium. The control arm was a single inhaler combination of beclomethasone and formoterol. All inhalers were used twice daily.

TRIMARIN, with 171 participating sites in 16 countries, randomized 1,155 patients to the triple-drug inhaler with a moderate dose of ICS (100 mcg) or to the ICS/LABA inhaler. In TRIGGER, with 221 sites in 17 countries, 1,437 patients were randomized to one of three arms. Both the triple-drug inhaler arm and the ICS/LABA arm contained a higher dose of ICS (200 mcg) than in TRIMARIN. In an open-label third arm, patients also received the higher dose of ICS plus LABA and a second inhaler with tiotropium. The formoterol dose in all arms of both studies was 6 mcg.

As reported at the ATS and now published in the Lancet, the reduction in exacerbations on single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant when the data were pooled (even though the reduction in the TRIGGER study fell short of statistical significance). The median improvement in lung function for single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant in both TRIMARIN (57 mL; P = .008) and TRIGGER (73 mL; P = .0025).

In discussing the new pooled analysis of response predictors in TRIMARIN/TRIGGER, the ERS-invited discussant, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, expressed particular interest in reversibility. A positive reversibility test to salbutamol was an entry criterion for both trials, but Dr. Porsbjerg pointed out that a greater response in those with the highest reversibility suggests these patients have a phenotype in which bronchodilation is a more important driver of disease than is inflammation.

While conceding that this was possible, Dr. Singh cautioned that he considers these predictors of response to be “exploratory.” He believes that the TRIMARIN/TRIGGER studies were not designed to tease out the relative importance of mechanisms of asthma in response to the assigned therapies. However, he believes the response predictor analysis is a step in this direction, which might be valuable for better individualizing therapy.

The studies were funded by Chiesi Farmaceutici. Dr. Singh reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Virchow JC et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 30. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32215-9.

MADRID – Two newly published but previously reported phase 3 trials associated triple therapy in a single inhaler with a 23% reduction (P = .008) in asthma exacerbations relative to a two-drug inhaler, but fresh data from a prespecified analysis presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society has identified those patients most likely to benefit.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Six easily identifiable factors appear to be associated with the most prominent response to treatment and may help in the treatment step-up decision at the point of care,” reported Dave Singh, MD, professor in the division of infection, immunity, and respiratory medicine, University of Manchester (England).

The six factors associated with a lower relative risk (RR) of severe exacerbations were derived from the phase 3 TRIMARIN and TRIGGER trials. The primary results of these trials were presented several months ago at the 2019 American Thoracic Society (ATS) meeting, but the full data were published on the day that Dr. Singh spoke at the ERS.

To identify predictors of response, the pooled analysis of TRIMARIN and TRIGGER was prespecified. Both of these trials, which were similarly designed, compared a single inhaler of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to a single ICS/LABA inhaler.

On the basis of risk for severe exacerbations, greater protection from triple therapy relative to a conventional ICS/LABA inhaler was identified for those with a high degree of reversibility (defined as greater than 400 mL) relative to those with a lower degree (RR, 0.729; P = .024), those with a body mass index less than 25 kg/m² relative to a higher BMI (RR, 0.570; P = .005), those with only one exacerbation in the previous 12 months relative to those with more (RR, 0.731; P = .009), never-smokers relative to those with smoking history (RR, 0.764; P = .013), those younger than age 65 years relative to older (RR, 0.770; P = .17), and males relative to females (RR, 0.651; P = .009).

“This gives us six factors to consider when you are thinking about stepping up to triple therapy and are trying to determine which patients would benefit the most,” Dr. Singh said.

Both the TRIMARIN and the TRIGGER trials were double blind and placebo controlled. In both, the experimental arm was a single inhaler triple therapy of the ICS beclomethasone, the LABA formoterol, and the LAMA glycopyrronium. The control arm was a single inhaler combination of beclomethasone and formoterol. All inhalers were used twice daily.

TRIMARIN, with 171 participating sites in 16 countries, randomized 1,155 patients to the triple-drug inhaler with a moderate dose of ICS (100 mcg) or to the ICS/LABA inhaler. In TRIGGER, with 221 sites in 17 countries, 1,437 patients were randomized to one of three arms. Both the triple-drug inhaler arm and the ICS/LABA arm contained a higher dose of ICS (200 mcg) than in TRIMARIN. In an open-label third arm, patients also received the higher dose of ICS plus LABA and a second inhaler with tiotropium. The formoterol dose in all arms of both studies was 6 mcg.

As reported at the ATS and now published in the Lancet, the reduction in exacerbations on single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant when the data were pooled (even though the reduction in the TRIGGER study fell short of statistical significance). The median improvement in lung function for single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant in both TRIMARIN (57 mL; P = .008) and TRIGGER (73 mL; P = .0025).

In discussing the new pooled analysis of response predictors in TRIMARIN/TRIGGER, the ERS-invited discussant, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, expressed particular interest in reversibility. A positive reversibility test to salbutamol was an entry criterion for both trials, but Dr. Porsbjerg pointed out that a greater response in those with the highest reversibility suggests these patients have a phenotype in which bronchodilation is a more important driver of disease than is inflammation.

While conceding that this was possible, Dr. Singh cautioned that he considers these predictors of response to be “exploratory.” He believes that the TRIMARIN/TRIGGER studies were not designed to tease out the relative importance of mechanisms of asthma in response to the assigned therapies. However, he believes the response predictor analysis is a step in this direction, which might be valuable for better individualizing therapy.

The studies were funded by Chiesi Farmaceutici. Dr. Singh reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Virchow JC et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 30. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32215-9.

MADRID – Pirfenidone was shown to be effective for slowing decline in lung function among patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung diseases (uILD), according to results of a late breaker, placebo-controlled, multinational trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For preservation of lung function as monitored with forced vital capacity (FVC), pirfenidone provided a large and highly statistically significant advantage over placebo in a phase 2 trial that randomized 253 uILD patients to 2,403 mg pirfenidone or placebo, according to Toby M. Maher, MD, head of the Fibrosis Research Group for the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London.

At 24 weeks, FVC lung function declined by just 17.8 mL in the pirfenidone group vs. 113 mL in the placebo group (P = .002). The results, published simultaneously with Dr. Maher’s ERS presentation in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, are particularly encouraging because there are no currently approved treatments for uILD, according to Dr. Maher.

However, the data from this study, even though it was double blind and involved 70 participating centers in 14 countries, come with an asterisk. The significant FVC advantage was documented with in-hospital measurements, but this was a secondary, not the primary, endpoint. Measurements with hand-held spirometry, which was the primary endpoint, proved to be uninterpretable due to intra-individual variability.

“We had hoped that daily home spirometry would give us more information of the patient’s trajectory over time,” said Dr. Maher, who blames himself for selecting hand-held device measurements as the primary endpoint. In the end, the variability in the home hand-held spirometry data prevented the planned statistical testing.

“There were issues with the hand-held devices we had not anticipated,” Dr. Maher reported. However, hospital-based measurement, which has long been the “regulatory standard” in ILD trials “supports the conclusion that pirfenidone was effective.”

The conclusion is also supported by other secondary outcomes and analyses. For example, the categorical declines in FVC of greater than 5% (37.0% vs. 58.7%; P = .001) and greater than 10% (14.2% vs. 27.9%; P = .011) both favored pirfenidone. There were no between-group differences in progression-free survival at 24 weeks, but events were low in both study arms over this time period.

There was evidence of functional benefit for pirfenidone relative to placebo, such as a smaller decline in the 6-minute walk test (–2 vs. –26.7 M, P = .04). Treatment favoring pirfenidone over placebo was observed across subgroups defined by age, gender, baseline lung function, and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features.

Pirfenidone was generally well tolerated with side effects similar to those reported in other studies. The rate of treatment-related discontinuation was 12.6% on pirfenidone versus 0.8% on placebo. The most frequent adverse events, all of which were more common in the pirfenidone group, were gastrointestinal complaints (47.2% vs. 25.8%), rash (10.2% vs. 7.3%), and dizziness (7.9% vs. 0.8%). Rates of photosensitivity were higher in the experimental arm (7.9% vs. 1.8%), but low relative to previous studies, potentially because of greater emphasis on sun protection, Dr. Maher reported.

About 10%-15% of patients with ILD have an unclassifiable type, he noted. Although it is possible for uILD to be a missed diagnosis of an established ILD type, Dr. Maher reported that participating centers for this study were specifically selected for their expertise in ILD. He noted that more than 45% of patients were deemed uILD on the basis of biopsy.

The ERS-invited discussant of this trial, Martin Kolb, MD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the data “strong.” He suggested the data are particularly encouraging in the context of the lack of approved therapies for uILD.

Despite the fact that benefit of pirfenidone was not established on the primary endpoint, Dr. Maher contended that this is a positive study that can be used to design future investigations. “When we use the normal standard endpoint for the study, we see a clear benefit of pirfenidone over placebo.”

Dr. Maher reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Maher TM et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8.

MADRID – Pirfenidone was shown to be effective for slowing decline in lung function among patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung diseases (uILD), according to results of a late breaker, placebo-controlled, multinational trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For preservation of lung function as monitored with forced vital capacity (FVC), pirfenidone provided a large and highly statistically significant advantage over placebo in a phase 2 trial that randomized 253 uILD patients to 2,403 mg pirfenidone or placebo, according to Toby M. Maher, MD, head of the Fibrosis Research Group for the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London.

At 24 weeks, FVC lung function declined by just 17.8 mL in the pirfenidone group vs. 113 mL in the placebo group (P = .002). The results, published simultaneously with Dr. Maher’s ERS presentation in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, are particularly encouraging because there are no currently approved treatments for uILD, according to Dr. Maher.

However, the data from this study, even though it was double blind and involved 70 participating centers in 14 countries, come with an asterisk. The significant FVC advantage was documented with in-hospital measurements, but this was a secondary, not the primary, endpoint. Measurements with hand-held spirometry, which was the primary endpoint, proved to be uninterpretable due to intra-individual variability.

“We had hoped that daily home spirometry would give us more information of the patient’s trajectory over time,” said Dr. Maher, who blames himself for selecting hand-held device measurements as the primary endpoint. In the end, the variability in the home hand-held spirometry data prevented the planned statistical testing.

“There were issues with the hand-held devices we had not anticipated,” Dr. Maher reported. However, hospital-based measurement, which has long been the “regulatory standard” in ILD trials “supports the conclusion that pirfenidone was effective.”

The conclusion is also supported by other secondary outcomes and analyses. For example, the categorical declines in FVC of greater than 5% (37.0% vs. 58.7%; P = .001) and greater than 10% (14.2% vs. 27.9%; P = .011) both favored pirfenidone. There were no between-group differences in progression-free survival at 24 weeks, but events were low in both study arms over this time period.

There was evidence of functional benefit for pirfenidone relative to placebo, such as a smaller decline in the 6-minute walk test (–2 vs. –26.7 M, P = .04). Treatment favoring pirfenidone over placebo was observed across subgroups defined by age, gender, baseline lung function, and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features.

Pirfenidone was generally well tolerated with side effects similar to those reported in other studies. The rate of treatment-related discontinuation was 12.6% on pirfenidone versus 0.8% on placebo. The most frequent adverse events, all of which were more common in the pirfenidone group, were gastrointestinal complaints (47.2% vs. 25.8%), rash (10.2% vs. 7.3%), and dizziness (7.9% vs. 0.8%). Rates of photosensitivity were higher in the experimental arm (7.9% vs. 1.8%), but low relative to previous studies, potentially because of greater emphasis on sun protection, Dr. Maher reported.

About 10%-15% of patients with ILD have an unclassifiable type, he noted. Although it is possible for uILD to be a missed diagnosis of an established ILD type, Dr. Maher reported that participating centers for this study were specifically selected for their expertise in ILD. He noted that more than 45% of patients were deemed uILD on the basis of biopsy.

The ERS-invited discussant of this trial, Martin Kolb, MD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the data “strong.” He suggested the data are particularly encouraging in the context of the lack of approved therapies for uILD.

Despite the fact that benefit of pirfenidone was not established on the primary endpoint, Dr. Maher contended that this is a positive study that can be used to design future investigations. “When we use the normal standard endpoint for the study, we see a clear benefit of pirfenidone over placebo.”

Dr. Maher reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Maher TM et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8.

MADRID – Pirfenidone was shown to be effective for slowing decline in lung function among patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung diseases (uILD), according to results of a late breaker, placebo-controlled, multinational trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For preservation of lung function as monitored with forced vital capacity (FVC), pirfenidone provided a large and highly statistically significant advantage over placebo in a phase 2 trial that randomized 253 uILD patients to 2,403 mg pirfenidone or placebo, according to Toby M. Maher, MD, head of the Fibrosis Research Group for the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London.

At 24 weeks, FVC lung function declined by just 17.8 mL in the pirfenidone group vs. 113 mL in the placebo group (P = .002). The results, published simultaneously with Dr. Maher’s ERS presentation in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, are particularly encouraging because there are no currently approved treatments for uILD, according to Dr. Maher.

However, the data from this study, even though it was double blind and involved 70 participating centers in 14 countries, come with an asterisk. The significant FVC advantage was documented with in-hospital measurements, but this was a secondary, not the primary, endpoint. Measurements with hand-held spirometry, which was the primary endpoint, proved to be uninterpretable due to intra-individual variability.

“We had hoped that daily home spirometry would give us more information of the patient’s trajectory over time,” said Dr. Maher, who blames himself for selecting hand-held device measurements as the primary endpoint. In the end, the variability in the home hand-held spirometry data prevented the planned statistical testing.

“There were issues with the hand-held devices we had not anticipated,” Dr. Maher reported. However, hospital-based measurement, which has long been the “regulatory standard” in ILD trials “supports the conclusion that pirfenidone was effective.”

The conclusion is also supported by other secondary outcomes and analyses. For example, the categorical declines in FVC of greater than 5% (37.0% vs. 58.7%; P = .001) and greater than 10% (14.2% vs. 27.9%; P = .011) both favored pirfenidone. There were no between-group differences in progression-free survival at 24 weeks, but events were low in both study arms over this time period.

There was evidence of functional benefit for pirfenidone relative to placebo, such as a smaller decline in the 6-minute walk test (–2 vs. –26.7 M, P = .04). Treatment favoring pirfenidone over placebo was observed across subgroups defined by age, gender, baseline lung function, and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features.

Pirfenidone was generally well tolerated with side effects similar to those reported in other studies. The rate of treatment-related discontinuation was 12.6% on pirfenidone versus 0.8% on placebo. The most frequent adverse events, all of which were more common in the pirfenidone group, were gastrointestinal complaints (47.2% vs. 25.8%), rash (10.2% vs. 7.3%), and dizziness (7.9% vs. 0.8%). Rates of photosensitivity were higher in the experimental arm (7.9% vs. 1.8%), but low relative to previous studies, potentially because of greater emphasis on sun protection, Dr. Maher reported.

About 10%-15% of patients with ILD have an unclassifiable type, he noted. Although it is possible for uILD to be a missed diagnosis of an established ILD type, Dr. Maher reported that participating centers for this study were specifically selected for their expertise in ILD. He noted that more than 45% of patients were deemed uILD on the basis of biopsy.

The ERS-invited discussant of this trial, Martin Kolb, MD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the data “strong.” He suggested the data are particularly encouraging in the context of the lack of approved therapies for uILD.

Despite the fact that benefit of pirfenidone was not established on the primary endpoint, Dr. Maher contended that this is a positive study that can be used to design future investigations. “When we use the normal standard endpoint for the study, we see a clear benefit of pirfenidone over placebo.”

Dr. Maher reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Maher TM et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8.

MADRID – In patients with fibrosing lung diseases other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, substantially reduced the rate of decline in lung function, according to findings from a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The trial, called INBUILD, enrolled patients who had a progressive lung disease with a fibrosing phenotype, such as interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) or noninterstitial pneumonia (NSIP), on the premise that these conditions might share a pathology responsive to a common therapy, explained Kevin R. Flaherty, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver. The INBUILD trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at 153 sites in 15 countries. A total of 663 patients underwent randomization and received at least one dose of nintedanib (332) or placebo (331).

Patients with fibrosing lung disease affecting more than 10% of lung volume were randomized to 150 mg twice daily of nintedanib, which inhibits intracellular growth factors implicated in fibrosis and is already indicated for IPF, or matching placebo.

On the primary endpoint of change in forced vital capacity (FVC) at 52 weeks, those in the nintedanib arm lost lung function at a rate that was less than half that of those randomized to placebo (–80.8 vs. –187.8 mL/year; P less than .001).

In a preplanned stratification, the protection from nintedanib against a decline in lung function was found to be at least as good in those with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP-like) pattern of fibrosis on baseline imaging (–82.9 vs. –211.1 mL/year), compared with those with other fibrotic patterns (–79.0 vs. –154.2 mL/year). The UIP-like subgroup represented about 60% of those enrolled.

“The relative protection from decline in lung function supports the hypothesis that progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases have a similar pathobiologic mechanism,” said Dr. Flaherty. Results from the INBUILD were published simultaneously with his ERS presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908681).

The curves documenting change of lung function in favor of nintedanib relative to placebo separated within 12 weeks of treatment initiation, according to Dr. Flaherty. The ERS-invited discussant, Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the reductions in loss of lung function “profound” and “very impactful.”

However, despite these reductions, there was no significant difference in quality of life as measured with the King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) questionnaire, which was a secondary outcome. The problem was that there was little change in KBILD in either group at 52 weeks, limiting the ability to show differences.

The rates of death were numerically lower at 52 weeks in the nintedanib arm for the study overall (4.8% vs. 5.1%) and for the UIP-like subgroup (5.3% vs. 7.8%), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

A suggestion of benefit was derived from a design feature of INBUILD that called for patients to remain on blinded therapy until all enrolled patients completed the trial. When the effect of nintedanib was evaluated in this extended analysis, the event curves for the combined endpoint of interstitial lung disease or death separated and approached significance.

In this extended analysis, which suggests that clinical benefit is likely to accrue after longer periods of treatment, “we saw similar trends when we looked at mortality as an independent outcome,” Dr. Flaherty reported.

More patients in the nintedanib group discontinued therapy because of adverse events (19.6% vs. 10.3%), but Dr. Flaherty characterized the rate of serious adverse events as “similar.” He made this statement even though several adverse events, particularly those involving the gastrointestinal tract, such as diarrhea (66.9% vs. 23.9%), nausea (28.9% vs. 9.4%), vomiting (18.4% vs. 5.1%), and abdominal pain (10.2% vs. 2.4%), were higher in the nintedanib arm.

The INBUILD trial demonstrates that nintedanib preserves lung function in fibrosing lung diseases other than IPF. In his review of this paper, Dr. Kolb pointed out that non-IPF etiologies represent about 75% of interstitial lung diseases. For these patients “we have no drugs, so there is a big medical need.”

Dr. Flaherty reports no potential conflicts of interest. The study was funded by Boehringer-Ingelheim, which produces nintedanib.

SOURCE: Flaherty KR et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908681.

MADRID – In patients with fibrosing lung diseases other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, substantially reduced the rate of decline in lung function, according to findings from a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The trial, called INBUILD, enrolled patients who had a progressive lung disease with a fibrosing phenotype, such as interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) or noninterstitial pneumonia (NSIP), on the premise that these conditions might share a pathology responsive to a common therapy, explained Kevin R. Flaherty, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver. The INBUILD trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at 153 sites in 15 countries. A total of 663 patients underwent randomization and received at least one dose of nintedanib (332) or placebo (331).

Patients with fibrosing lung disease affecting more than 10% of lung volume were randomized to 150 mg twice daily of nintedanib, which inhibits intracellular growth factors implicated in fibrosis and is already indicated for IPF, or matching placebo.

On the primary endpoint of change in forced vital capacity (FVC) at 52 weeks, those in the nintedanib arm lost lung function at a rate that was less than half that of those randomized to placebo (–80.8 vs. –187.8 mL/year; P less than .001).

In a preplanned stratification, the protection from nintedanib against a decline in lung function was found to be at least as good in those with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP-like) pattern of fibrosis on baseline imaging (–82.9 vs. –211.1 mL/year), compared with those with other fibrotic patterns (–79.0 vs. –154.2 mL/year). The UIP-like subgroup represented about 60% of those enrolled.

“The relative protection from decline in lung function supports the hypothesis that progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases have a similar pathobiologic mechanism,” said Dr. Flaherty. Results from the INBUILD were published simultaneously with his ERS presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908681).

The curves documenting change of lung function in favor of nintedanib relative to placebo separated within 12 weeks of treatment initiation, according to Dr. Flaherty. The ERS-invited discussant, Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the reductions in loss of lung function “profound” and “very impactful.”

However, despite these reductions, there was no significant difference in quality of life as measured with the King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) questionnaire, which was a secondary outcome. The problem was that there was little change in KBILD in either group at 52 weeks, limiting the ability to show differences.

The rates of death were numerically lower at 52 weeks in the nintedanib arm for the study overall (4.8% vs. 5.1%) and for the UIP-like subgroup (5.3% vs. 7.8%), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

A suggestion of benefit was derived from a design feature of INBUILD that called for patients to remain on blinded therapy until all enrolled patients completed the trial. When the effect of nintedanib was evaluated in this extended analysis, the event curves for the combined endpoint of interstitial lung disease or death separated and approached significance.

In this extended analysis, which suggests that clinical benefit is likely to accrue after longer periods of treatment, “we saw similar trends when we looked at mortality as an independent outcome,” Dr. Flaherty reported.

More patients in the nintedanib group discontinued therapy because of adverse events (19.6% vs. 10.3%), but Dr. Flaherty characterized the rate of serious adverse events as “similar.” He made this statement even though several adverse events, particularly those involving the gastrointestinal tract, such as diarrhea (66.9% vs. 23.9%), nausea (28.9% vs. 9.4%), vomiting (18.4% vs. 5.1%), and abdominal pain (10.2% vs. 2.4%), were higher in the nintedanib arm.

The INBUILD trial demonstrates that nintedanib preserves lung function in fibrosing lung diseases other than IPF. In his review of this paper, Dr. Kolb pointed out that non-IPF etiologies represent about 75% of interstitial lung diseases. For these patients “we have no drugs, so there is a big medical need.”

Dr. Flaherty reports no potential conflicts of interest. The study was funded by Boehringer-Ingelheim, which produces nintedanib.

SOURCE: Flaherty KR et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908681.

MADRID – In patients with fibrosing lung diseases other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, substantially reduced the rate of decline in lung function, according to findings from a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The trial, called INBUILD, enrolled patients who had a progressive lung disease with a fibrosing phenotype, such as interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) or noninterstitial pneumonia (NSIP), on the premise that these conditions might share a pathology responsive to a common therapy, explained Kevin R. Flaherty, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver. The INBUILD trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at 153 sites in 15 countries. A total of 663 patients underwent randomization and received at least one dose of nintedanib (332) or placebo (331).

Patients with fibrosing lung disease affecting more than 10% of lung volume were randomized to 150 mg twice daily of nintedanib, which inhibits intracellular growth factors implicated in fibrosis and is already indicated for IPF, or matching placebo.

On the primary endpoint of change in forced vital capacity (FVC) at 52 weeks, those in the nintedanib arm lost lung function at a rate that was less than half that of those randomized to placebo (–80.8 vs. –187.8 mL/year; P less than .001).

In a preplanned stratification, the protection from nintedanib against a decline in lung function was found to be at least as good in those with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP-like) pattern of fibrosis on baseline imaging (–82.9 vs. –211.1 mL/year), compared with those with other fibrotic patterns (–79.0 vs. –154.2 mL/year). The UIP-like subgroup represented about 60% of those enrolled.

“The relative protection from decline in lung function supports the hypothesis that progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases have a similar pathobiologic mechanism,” said Dr. Flaherty. Results from the INBUILD were published simultaneously with his ERS presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908681).

The curves documenting change of lung function in favor of nintedanib relative to placebo separated within 12 weeks of treatment initiation, according to Dr. Flaherty. The ERS-invited discussant, Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, professor of respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., called the reductions in loss of lung function “profound” and “very impactful.”

However, despite these reductions, there was no significant difference in quality of life as measured with the King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) questionnaire, which was a secondary outcome. The problem was that there was little change in KBILD in either group at 52 weeks, limiting the ability to show differences.

The rates of death were numerically lower at 52 weeks in the nintedanib arm for the study overall (4.8% vs. 5.1%) and for the UIP-like subgroup (5.3% vs. 7.8%), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

A suggestion of benefit was derived from a design feature of INBUILD that called for patients to remain on blinded therapy until all enrolled patients completed the trial. When the effect of nintedanib was evaluated in this extended analysis, the event curves for the combined endpoint of interstitial lung disease or death separated and approached significance.

In this extended analysis, which suggests that clinical benefit is likely to accrue after longer periods of treatment, “we saw similar trends when we looked at mortality as an independent outcome,” Dr. Flaherty reported.

More patients in the nintedanib group discontinued therapy because of adverse events (19.6% vs. 10.3%), but Dr. Flaherty characterized the rate of serious adverse events as “similar.” He made this statement even though several adverse events, particularly those involving the gastrointestinal tract, such as diarrhea (66.9% vs. 23.9%), nausea (28.9% vs. 9.4%), vomiting (18.4% vs. 5.1%), and abdominal pain (10.2% vs. 2.4%), were higher in the nintedanib arm.

The INBUILD trial demonstrates that nintedanib preserves lung function in fibrosing lung diseases other than IPF. In his review of this paper, Dr. Kolb pointed out that non-IPF etiologies represent about 75% of interstitial lung diseases. For these patients “we have no drugs, so there is a big medical need.”

Dr. Flaherty reports no potential conflicts of interest. The study was funded by Boehringer-Ingelheim, which produces nintedanib.

SOURCE: Flaherty KR et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908681.