Dupilumab Suppresses Type 2 Biomarkers in Asthma Patients With and Without Comorbid Chronic Rhinosinusitis With or Without Nasal Polyposis (CRS/NP): Post Hoc Analysis of LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST

Anti-interleukin-13 and anti-interleukin-4 agents versus placebo, anti-interleukin-5 or anti-immunoglobulin-E agents, for people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Targeting the immunoglobulin E pathway and the interleukin-5 pathway with specific monoclonal antibodies directed against the cytokines or their receptors is effective in patients with severe asthma. However, there are patients who have suboptimal responses to these biologics. Since interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, signalling through the interleukin-4 receptor, have multiple effects on the biology of asthma, therapies targeting interleukin-4 and -13 (both individually and combined) have been developed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4 agents, compared with placebo, anti-immunoglobulin E agents, or anti-interleukin-5 agents, for the treatment of children, adolescents, or adults with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the Group and through searches of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The search was carried out on the 16 October 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials that compared anti-interleukin-13 or -4 agents (or agents that target both interleukin-13 and interleukin-4) with placebo in adolescents and adults (aged 16 years or older) or children (younger than 16 years), with a diagnosis of asthma; participants could receive their usual short- or long-acting medications (e.g. inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta adrenoceptor agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists) provided that they were not part of the randomised treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 41 RCTs. Of these, 29 studies contributed data to the quantitative analyses, randomly assigning 10,604 people with asthma to receive an anti-interleukin-13 (intervention) or anti-interleukin-4 agent (intervention), or placebo (comparator). No relevant studies were identified where the comparator was an anti-immunoglobulin agent or an anti-interleukin-5 agent. Studies had a duration of between 2 and 52 (median 16) weeks. The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 22 to 55 years. Only five studies permitted enrolment of children and adolescents, accounting for less than 5% of the total participants contributing data to the present review. The majority of participants had moderate or severe uncontrolled asthma. Concomitant ICS use was permitted or required in the majority (21 of 29) of the included studies. The use of maintenance systemic corticosteroids was not permitted in 19 studies and was permitted or required in five studies (information not reported in five studies). Regarding the most commonly assessed anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents, four studies evaluated dupilumab (300 mg once every week (Q1W), 200 mg once every two weeks (Q2W), 300 mg Q2W, 200 mg once every four weeks (Q4W), 300 mg Q4W, each administered by subcutaneous (SC) injection); eight studies evaluated lebrikizumab (37.5 mg Q4W, 125 mg Q4W, 250 mg Q4W each administered by SC injection); and nine studies (3259 participants) evaluated tralokinumab (75 mg Q1W, 150 mg Q1W, 300 mg Q1W, 150 mg Q2W, 300 mg Q2W, 600 mg Q2W, 300 mg Q4W, each administered by SC injection; 1/5/10 mg/kg administered by intravenous (IV) injection); all anti-interleukin-13 or-4 agents were compared with placebo. The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unclear (insufficient detail provided); nine studies were considered to be at high risk for attrition bias and three studies were considered to be at high risk for reporting bias. The following results relate to the primary outcomes. The rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or emergency department (ED) visit was probably lower in participants receiving tralokinumab versus placebo (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.98; moderate-certainty evidence; data available for tralokinumab (anti-interleukin-13) only). In participants receiving an anti-interleukin-13/-4 agent, the mean improvement versus placebo in adjusted asthma quality of life questionnaire score was 0.18 units (95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; high-certainty evidence); however, this finding was deemed not to be a clinically relevant improvement. There was likely little or no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who reported all-cause serious adverse events (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of secondary outcomes, there may be little or no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who experienced exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32; low-certainty evidence). Anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents probably improve asthma control based on asthma control questionnaire score (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.24 to -0.14); however, the magnitude of this result was deemed not to be a clinically relevant improvement. The proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event was greater in those receiving anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents compared with those receiving placebo (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30; high-certainty evidence); the most commonly reported adverse events in participants treated with anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache and injection site reaction. The pooled results for the exploratory outcome, the rate of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS) or hospitalisation or emergency department visit, may be lower in participants receiving anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo (rate ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77; low-certainty evidence). Results were generally consistent across subgroups for different classes of agent (anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4), durations of study and severity of disease. Subgroup analysis based on category of T helper 2 (TH2) inflammation suggested greater efficacy in patients with higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers (blood eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide and serum periostin).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the totality of the evidence, compared with placebo, anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents are probably associated with a reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or ED visit, at the cost of increased adverse events, in patients with asthma. No clinically relevant improvements in health-related quality of life or asthma control were identified. Therefore, anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4 agents may be appropriate for adults with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma who have not responded to other treatments. These conclusions are generally supported by moderate or high-certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps.   'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9).  It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. In these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).

Dupilumab: A Review in Moderate to Severe Asthma

Dupilumab (Dupixent^®) is a fully human monoclonal antibody against the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α subunit of IL-4 and IL-4/IL-13 receptor complexes. IL-4 and IL-13 are key cytokines in driving type 2 inflammation, a dominant and largely eosinophilic inflammatory pathway in asthma. Trials evaluating the efficacy of dupilumab in asthma include three pivotal, placebo-controlled, phase 3 or 2b trials of 24-52 weeks' treatment duration in patients aged ≥ 12 years with moderate-to-severe asthma (inadequately controlled with medium-to-high dose inhaled corticosteroids) or severe asthma [dependent on oral corticosteroids (OCS) for control]. In these studies, adding subcutaneous dupilumab (200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks) to background therapy was generally well tolerated and reduced the rate of severe asthma exacerbations, improved lung function, as well as asthma control and, where specified, health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and enabled OCS maintenance doses to be reduced without impacting asthma control. Dupilumab displayed efficacy across various patient subgroups, although those with heightened type 2 immune activity, including elevated eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide, tended to have a more prominent treatment benefit. Dupilumab is consequently widely indicated (and a valuable treatment option) as an add-on therapy in patients aged ≥ 12 years who have severe/moderate-to-severe asthma with a type 2 inflammation/eosinophilic phenotype despite conventional treatments or have OCS-dependent asthma.

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps.   'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in related inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (currently, monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse events (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs. Of 986 adult participants, 984 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (score 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, the SNOT-22 score was 19.61 points lower (better) in participants receiving dupilumab (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). Symptom severity measured on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) was 3.00 lower in those receiving dupilumab (95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). The risk of serious adverse events may be lower in the dupilumab group (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.75; 3 studies; 782 participants; low certainty).  The number of participants requiring nasal polyp surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period is probably lower in those receiving dupilumab (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.52; 2 studies; 725 participants; moderate certainty). Change in the extent of disease using the Lund Mackay computerised tomography (CT) score (0 to 24, higher = worse) was -7.00 (95% CI -9.61 to -4.39; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty), a large effect favouring the dupilumab group.  The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (0 to 100, higher = better; MCID 8 points) was used to measure change in generic quality of life. The mean difference favouring dupilumab was 8.59 (95% CI 5.31 to 11.86; 2 studies; 706 participants; moderate certainty). There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 3 studies; 783 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versusplacebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL measured with the SNOT-22 at 25 weeks was 13.26 points lower (better) in participants receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9).  It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in s ymptom severity: on a 0- to 10-point VAS symptom severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether or not the overall risk that patients still need surgery at trial end is lower in the mepolizumab group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94; 2 studies; 135 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain whether mepolizumab reduces the extent of disease as measured by endoscopic nasal polyps score (scale range 0 to 8). The mean difference was 1.23 points lower in the mepolizumab group (MD -1.23, 95% -1.79 to -0.68; 2 studies; 137 participants; very low certainty). The difference in generic quality of life (EQ-5D) was 5.68 (95% CI -1.18 to 12.54; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty), favouring the mepolizumab group. This difference is smaller than the MCID of 8 points. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis (RR 0.73, 95% 0.36 to 1.47; 2 studies; 135 participants; low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three very small studies (65 participants) evaluated omalizumab. We are very uncertain about the effect of omalizumab on disease-specific HRQL, severe adverse events, extent of disease (CT scan scores), generic HRQL and adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, using regular topical nasal steroids, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo, and reduces the extent of the disease as measured on a CT scan. It probably also improves symptoms and generic HRQL and there is no evidence of an increased risk of serious adverse events. It may reduce the need for further surgery. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis. In similar patients, mepolizumab may improve both disease-specific and generic HRQL. It is uncertain whether it reduces the need for surgery or improves nasal polyp scores. There may be little or no difference in the risk of nasopharyngitis. It is uncertain if there is a difference in symptom severity and the risk of serious adverse events. We are uncertain about the effects of omalizumab.