Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials

A Precision Medicine Approach to Rhinitis Evaluation and Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Precision medicine (PM) represents a new paradigm in disease diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. The PM approach focuses on the characterization of different phenotypes and pathogenic pathways in order to allow the selection of specific biomarkers that will be useful in disease management. Rhinitis is a highly prevalent and heterogeneous disease, both in terms of underlying endotypes and clinical presentations. Therefore, to apply the PM principles to the various rhinitis subtypes rise as a meaningful strategy to improve evaluation and treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

The technology of recombinant allergens has allowed molecular characterization of IgE reactivity of specific individual components of allergenic extracts. Recently published and ongoing clinical trials based on component resolved diagnosis (CRD) bring more precision to allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis. Monoclonal antibodies against various cytokines involved in inflammatory allergic and nonallergic rhinitis endotypes show promissory results.

SUMMARY

Better understanding of pathogenic pathways together with an accurate phenotype classification of patients presented with rhinitis symptoms contributes to point out clinical usefulness of biomarkers and other diagnostic tools, which leads to more accurate environmental control measures, personalized pharmacologic options, and new biological therapy developments.

Current and emerging biologic therapies for allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis, with and without nasal polyps, are the most common chronic inflammatory diseases of the upper airways. They both cause relevant respiratory symptoms and a substantial detriment to patients' quality of life, mainly in uncontrolled and severe patients.Areas covered: This review aims to present the most recent evidence on current and emerging biologic therapies for allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis and discuss their potential implementation in clinical practice. To select relevant literature for inclusion in this review, we conducted a literature search using the PubMed database, using terms 'biologics OR biological agents', 'allergic rhinitis' and 'chronic rhinosinusitis'. The literature review was performed for publication years 2009-2019, restricting the articles to humans and English language publications.Expert opinion: Biological therapies represent a potential step forward in providing individualized care for all patients with uncontrolled severe upper airway diseases. Biologics recently showed promising results for the treatment of severe uncontrolled allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps with or without associated asthma. Endotyping inflammatory pathways and identifying related biomarkers remain the major challenge for positioning biologics in the care pathway of chronic respiratory diseases.

Persistence of Sinonasal Disease Despite Mepolizumab

The treatment paradigm for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is currently undergoing a rapid evolution with the development of monoclonal antibody therapies targeted at type 2 inflammatory pathways. The use of these biologic therapies in asthmatic patients, and more recently, patients with CRSwNP has produced promising results, especially for patients with severe disease. Many questions regarding the appropriate timing of these medications, whether or not these new treatment strategies should be used as a monotherapy or in conjunction with traditional therapies such as sinus surgery, the role of appropriate phenotyping, and identification of biomarkers, remain unanswered. We herein present a case of a patient with severe eosinophilic asthma and comorbid CRSwNP who failed to achieve control of his respiratory symptomology and ultimately progressed to sinus surgery despite treatment with an anti-interleukin 5 monoclonal antibody therapy (mepolizumab). Consideration is given to the mechanistic underpinnings of the reported patient's failure. This case highlights the need for further understanding of the optimal usage of these novel therapeutics in the management of CRSwNP and in the need to better understand the pathophysiology of CRSwNP.

Intersection of biology and therapeutics: type 2 targeted therapeutics for adult asthma

Asthma is a disease of reversible airflow obstruction characterised clinically by wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. Increases in airway type 2 cytokine activity, including interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-5, and IL-13, are now established biological mechanisms in asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids have been the foundation for asthma treatment, in a large part because they decrease airway type 2 inflammation. However, inhaled or systemic corticosteroids are ineffective treatments in many patients with asthma and few treatment options exist for patients with steroid resistant asthma. Although mechanisms for corticosteroid refractory asthma are likely to be numerous, the development of a new class of biologic agents that target airway type 2 inflammation has provided a new model for treating some patients with corticosteroid refractory asthma. The objective of this Therapeutic paper is to summarise the new type 2 therapeutics, with an emphasis on the biological rationale and clinical efficacy of this new class of asthma therapeutics.

Dupilumab in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) imparts a significant healthcare challenge, resulting in diminished quality of life for patients and high costs with resource utilization for disease management. Understanding of CRSwNP pathophysiology has progressively evolved and the identification of various inflammatory biomarkers has led to the development of monoclonal antibodies that target the underlying mechanisms of inflammation. Dupilumab, which targets IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, serves as a novel agent for CRSwNP treatment. Three clinical trials, NCT01920893, SINUS-24 and SINUS-52, have shown that dupilumab improves both subjective patient-reported outcomes and objective physician-evaluated metrics for CRSwNP. The favorable findings have resulted in approval by the US FDA in June 2019 as the first biologic therapy for CRSwNP.

Use of endotypes, phenotypes, and inflammatory markers to guide treatment decisions in chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

With the advent of new treatment options for Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) comes the ability for physicians to provide more individualized patient care. Physicians are now tasked with identifying who may be the best candidate for a particular therapy. In this review, existing biomarkers and potentially new methods that could guide treatment choices in CRS patients will be discussed.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature obtained through PubMed searches.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies relevant to inflammatory endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS were included.

RESULTS

Currently, there are no clinically validated tools that determine the best therapeutic modality for CRS patients with or without nasal polyps (CRSwNP or CRSsNP). Patients with CRS can be classified into three endotypes based on the presence of type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation. CRS endotypes can be influenced by age and geographic location. Clinical application however may be limited since endotyping current requires basic research laboratory support. Clinical symptoms may also predict inflammatory endotypes with smell loss being indicative of type 2 inflammation. Numbers of tissue and/or peripheral eosinophils as well as levels of IgE may predict disease severity in CRSwNP but not necessarily treatment responses. Unique clinical phenotypes or biomarkers are especially lacking that predict type 1 or type 3 inflammation in CRSwNP or type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation in CRSsNP.

CONCLUSION

While significant progress has been made in characterizing endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS, additional studies are needed to determine if and how these factors could assist physicians in providing more individualized clinical care.

Clinical factors associated with acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is complicated by frequent acute exacerbations leading to significant health care burden and impaired quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify clinical factors associated with frequent acute exacerbation of CRS (AECRS).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with CRS from January 1, 2014, to May 31, 2016. Frequent AECRS was defined as at least 4 episodes over a 12-month period in which an antibiotic was prescribed for worsening sinus symptoms, and infrequent AECRS was defined as 0 to 3 episodes. Clinical factors, including asthma, allergic rhinitis, eosinophil count of at least 150 cells per microliter, and autoimmune disease, were evaluated for associations between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Of the 3109 patients with CRS who were identified, 600 (19.3%) were classified as having frequent exacerbation. Asthma, allergic rhinitis, eosinophil count of at least 150 cells per microliter, and autoimmune disease were associated with frequent AECRS with statistically significant adjusted odds ratios (aORs) after controlling for age, race, and sex in multivariate analysis (asthma aOR = 2.61 [95% CI = 2.14-3.18]; allergic rhinitis aOR = 1.96 [95% CI = 1.58-2.42]; eosinophil count of at least 150 cells per microliter aOR = 1.54 [95% CI = 1.21-1.97]; and autoimmune disease aOR = 1.68 [95% CI = 1.36-2.07]). Antibody deficiency, antibiotic allergy, lower FEV₁, radiographic sinus disease severity, nasal polyposis, and systemic corticosteroid use were also associated with frequent AECRS.

CONCLUSION

Patients with frequent episodes of AECRS were characterized by a higher prevalence of asthma, allergic rhinitis, eosinophil count of at least 150 cells per microliter, autoimmune disease, and other allergic and immunologic diseases. These findings identify a high-risk phenotype of patients with CRS for preventive interventions to reduce exacerbation frequency.

Endotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis: Impact on management

Following the trend in asthma, endotypes for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps have been established, with type 2 immune reactions representing >80% of nasal polyp cases in Europe and the United States. Endotyping is without doubt useful to predict the natural course of disease, to determine pharmacotherapy and the extent of surgery, and lately also to select patients for treatment with type 2 biologics. However, with the opening of this new era of treatment, limitations of the current possibilities in subgrouping patients also became apparent, as (1) mixed endotypes often can be found and (2) predictions as to the best biologic to be used in an individual patient are not yet possible. Some of the questions to address in the near future are discussed.

Current and Future Treatments of Rhinitis and Sinusitis

Advances in understanding the pathogenic mechanisms of both rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis have resulted in new treatment options, especially for chronic rhinosinusitis. A review of relevant medical and surgical clinical studies shows that intranasal corticosteroids, antihistamines, and allergen immunotherapy continue to be the best treatments for chronic rhinitis. Dupilumab is the first biologic approved for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab may have a future role in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Novel corticosteroid delivery devices such as an exhalation delivery system for fluticasone and bioabsorbable sinus implants provide enhanced and localized distribution of corticosteroids. Surgical management tailored to the underlying disease process improves clinical outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyposis. Advances in the understanding of the heterogeneous nature of rhinitis and rhinosinusitis have resulted in more precise treatments. Improving the understanding of different endotypes should provide better knowledge to determine appropriate current and new therapies to treat these diseases.

Superantigen-related TH2 CD4+ T cells in nonasthmatic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin (SAE) superantigens are detected in nasal polyps (NPs), and SAE-specific IgE predicts asthma comorbidity in patients with NPs. However, roles of SAE superantigens and superantigen-related T-cell responses remain to be elucidated in nonasthmatic patients.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the presence of SAEs and SAE-related T-cell receptor (TCR) Vβ (TCRVβ) in nonasthmatic NPs, the phenotypes and functions of SAE-related T cells, and the clinical implication of SAE-related T-cell expansion.

METHODS

Sinonasal tissue samples were obtained from patients with nonasthmatic chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with NPs (CRSwNP), patients with CRS without NPs (CRSsNP), and control subjects. SAE genes were detected by PCR, and the TCRVβ distribution and T-cell phenotypes were examined by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Various SAE genes were detected not only in NPs but also in sinonasal mucosa from patients with CRSsNP and from controls. The S aureus enterotoxin I (SEI) gene was detected in all NPs. The fraction of SEI-responsive TCRVβ⁺ (TCRVβ1⁺ and Vβ5.1⁺) CD4⁺ T cells was significantly increased only in NPs and the ethmoidal mucosa of patients with CRSwNP, indicating superantigen-induced expansion. The expanded TCRVβ5.1⁺ CD4⁺ T cells expressed proliferation marker Ki-67 and the T_H2 transcription factor GATA3. Furthermore, TCRVβ5.1⁺ CD4⁺ T cells in NPs highly expressed T_H2 markers, including IL-17RB, thymic stromal lymphoprotein receptor, and chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule expressed on T_H2 cells, with a potent T_H2 cytokine-producing ability. Moreover, the expansion of TCRVβ1⁺ or Vβ5.1⁺ CD4⁺ T cells was associated with the Lund-Mackay computed tomography score, indicating disease extent.

CONCLUSION

In nonasthmatic patients with CRSwNP, superantigen-related expansion of CD4⁺ T cells with T_H2 differentiation was associated with the disease extent.

Therapeutic Potential of Dupilumab in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Evidence to Date

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is one of the most severe forms of chronic rhinosinusitis. CRSwNP is characterized by nasal and facial congestion, loss of sense of smell, rhinorrhea, and post-nasal drip. Treatments have been ineffective at controlling disease recurrence, despite multiple courses of medical and surgical therapies. Oral glucocorticoid therapy is often used to control exacerbations leaving the patient exposed to steroid-induced adverse effects. Thus, there is a clear unmet need for new treatments to achieve better control of the disease. Advances in understanding Type 2 inflammatory processes that occur in about 80% of the Western world patients with CRSwNP have resulted in new avenues for disease control. Biologics in the form of monoclonal antibodies, which target Type 2 inflammation, have helped control the severest forms of atopic dermatitis and asthma. Treatment regimes for CRSwNP now include biologics. In July 2019, dupilumab was the first monoclonal antibody to gain FDA approval for the treatment of CRSwNP. In this review, we summarize the proof of concept clinical trials and Phase 3 trials leading to approval of dupilumab, an anti-IL4 alpha receptor antagonist that blocks the actions of both IL4 and IL13. These studies show that dupilumab is a proven treatment option to control disease. Collective studies demonstrate a high safety profile. Questions arise as to the best use of dupilumab in the context of current treatment paradigms, and for which sub-population of the varied heterogeneous endotypes of CRSwNP patients. Recognizing the high cost of biologics forces the need for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Asthma biologics: Comparing trial designs, patient cohorts and study results

OBJECTIVE

Five biologic therapies have FDA-approved indications for difficult-to-control asthma. The clinical trials that proved the efficacy and safety of these biologics were often similar in their inclusion criteria, study designs, and endpoints. Many of these trials have been reanalyzed post hoc to identify subsets of subjects considered to be enhanced responders. As a result, keeping up with the literature and deciding on the most appropriate biologic for our patients has become increasingly difficult. This review summarizes and compares trial designs, patient cohorts, and study results of the major trials involving these therapies.

DATA SOURCES

Included are basic science articles, online Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applications, and all the published reports of phase II and phase III clinical trials for FDA-approved asthma biologics.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Included are the major phase II and phase III clinical trials of 5 asthma biologics.

RESULTS

Because of variations in inclusion criteria and natural variations in enrolled cohorts, the baseline clinical traits and severity of study populations in asthma biologic trials differed significantly, which is important because baseline annualized exacerbation rates and blood eosinophilia are both strong predictors of a biologic's success. Notwithstanding, the trial results, when considered together, can help guide care providers in choosing the most appropriate biologic for our patients.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the details and differences in asthma biologic trial designs, patient cohorts, and in study results will help care providers make more informed decisions when choosing a biologic. We are hopeful this review will serve as a reference to care providers for this purpose.

Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Adolescents With Uncontrolled Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Adolescents with atopic dermatitis (AD) have high disease burden negatively affecting quality of life, with limited treatment options. The efficacy and safety of dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody, approved for treatment in adolescent patients with inadequately controlled AD, remain unknown in this patient population.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of dupilumab monotherapy in adolescents with moderate to severe inadequately controlled AD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial was conducted at 45 US and Canadian centers between March 21, 2017, and June 5, 2018. A total of 251 adolescents with moderate to severe AD inadequately controlled by topical medications or for whom topical therapy was inadvisable were included.

Interventions

Patients were randomized (1:1:1; interactive-response system; stratified by severity and body weight) to 16-week treatment with dupilumab, 200 mg (n = 43; baseline weight <60 kg), or dupilumab, 300 mg (n = 39; baseline weight ≥60 kg), every 2 weeks; dupilumab, 300 mg, every 4 weeks (n = 84); or placebo (n = 85).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of patients with 75% or more improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) (scores range from 0 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater severity) and Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 0 or 1 on a 5-point scale (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater severity) at week 16.

Results

A total of 251 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 14.5 [1.7] years; 148 [59.0%] male). Of 250 patients with data available on concurrent allergic conditions, most had comorbid type 2 diseases (asthma, 134 [53.6%]; food allergies, 60.8%; allergic rhinitis, 65.6%). A total of 240 patients (95.6%) completed the study. Dupilumab achieved both coprimary end points at week 16. The proportion of patients with EASI-75 improvement from baseline increased (every 2 weeks, 41.5%; every 4 weeks, 38.1%; placebo, 8.2%) with differences vs placebo of 33.2% (95% CI, 21.1%-45.4%) for every 2 weeks and 29.9% (95% CI, 17.9%-41.8%) for every 4 weeks (P < .001). Efficacy of the every-2-week regimen was generally superior to the every-4-week regimen. Patients in the dupilumab arms had higher percentage values of conjunctivitis (every 2 weeks, 9.8%; every 4 weeks, 10.8%; placebo, 4.7%) and injection-site reactions (every 2 weeks, 8.5%; every 4 weeks, 6.0%; placebo, 3.5%), and lower nonherpetic skin infections (every 2 weeks, 9.8%; every 4 weeks, 9.6%; placebo, 18.8%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, dupilumab significantly improved AD signs, symptoms, and quality of life in adolescents with moderate to severe AD, with an acceptable safety profile. Placebo-corrected efficacy and safety of dupilumab were similar in adolescents and adults.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03054428.

Dupilumab in adolescents with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from a phase IIa open-label trial and subsequent phase III open-label extension

Background

Dupilumab (monoclonal antibody inhibiting IL‐4/IL‐13 signalling) is approved for use in adolescents aged ≥ 12 years with inadequately controlled moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Dupilumab significantly improved AD signs/symptoms in a 16‐week, randomised, placebo‐controlled phase III trial in adolescents (NCT03054428).

Objectives

To characterize the pharmacokinetics of dupilumab, and long‐term safety and efficacy in adolescents.

Methods

This was a global, multicentre, phase IIa, open‐label, ascending‐dose, sequential cohort study with a phase III open‐label extension (OLE) in adolescents with moderate‐to‐severe AD. In the phase IIa study, patients received one dupilumab dose (2 mg kg⁻¹ or 4 mg kg⁻¹) and 8 weeks of pharmacokinetic sampling. Thereafter, patients received the same dose weekly for 4 weeks, with 8‐week safety follow‐up. Patients then enrolled in the OLE, continuing 2 mg kg⁻¹ or 4 mg kg⁻¹ dupilumab weekly. Primary end points were dupilumab concentration–time profile and incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary outcomes included Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI).

Results

Forty adolescents received dupilumab in the phase IIa study; 36 enrolled in the OLE. Dupilumab showed nonlinear, target‐mediated pharmacokinetics. Mean ± SD trough dupilumab concentrations in serum at week 48 (OLE) were 74 ± 19 mg L⁻¹ and 161 ± 60 mg L⁻¹ for 2 mg kg⁻¹ and 4 mg kg⁻¹, respectively. Dupilumab was well tolerated over 52 weeks; the most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis (week 52: 41% [2 mg kg⁻¹], 47% [4 mg kg⁻¹]) and AD exacerbation (29%, 42%). After one dupilumab dose in the phase IIa study, EASI improved from baseline to week 2 [mean ± SD reduction −34% ± 20% (2 mg kg⁻¹) and −51% ± 29% (4 mg kg⁻¹)]. With continuing treatment, EASI scores improved further [week 52: −85% ± 12% (2 mg kg⁻¹) and −84% ± 20% (4 mg kg⁻¹)].

Conclusions

In adolescents with moderate‐to‐severe AD, dupilumab's pharmacokinetic profile was similar to that in adults. These 52‐week safety and efficacy data support long‐term use of dupilumab in this patient population.

What's already known about this topic?

Adolescents with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) have high unmet medical need, with significant disease burden and limited treatment options.

Dupilumab (monoclonal antibody against interleukin‐4 receptor α) is approved for the treatment of adolescents with moderate‐to‐severe AD who are inadequately responsive to standard of care (U.S.A.) or candidates for systemic therapy (European Union).

A 16‐week, randomized, placebo‐controlled phase III trial in adolescents demonstrated significant improvements in AD signs/symptoms with an acceptable safety profile.

What does this study add?

These studies demonstrate the long‐term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in adolescents with moderate‐to‐severe AD for up to 52 weeks of treatment, thus extending and reinforcing the findings from the 16‐week dupilumab phase III trial.

The data from these studies also support the use of dupilumab in combination with current standard of care (topical corticosteroids), which was not evaluated in the 16‐week phase III monotherapy trial.

Linked Comment: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18627.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18661 available online