American Thoracic Society (ATS): International Conference 2019

DALLAS – Warfarin appears to increase the risk of lung transplant or death for patients with fibrotic lung disease who need anticoagulation therapy, Christopher King, MD, said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Compared with direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC), warfarin doubled the risk of those outcomes, even after the researchers controlled for multiple morbidities that accompany the need for anticoagulation, said Dr. King, medical director of the transplant and advanced lung disease critical care program at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital.

“The need for anticoagulation in patients with interstitial lung disease is already associated with an increased risk of death or transplant,” he said. Warfarin – but not oral anticoagulation – seems to increase that risk even more “no matter how you analyze it,” he said.

“We know now that fibrosis and coagulation are entwined, and there’s background epidemiologic data showing an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism and acute coronary syndrome in patients with pulmonary fibrosis. This suggests that a dysregulated coagulation cascade may play a role in the pathogenesis of fibrosis.”

The relationship has been explored for the last decade or so. Two recent meta-analyses came to similar conclusions.

In 2013, a 125-patient retrospective cohort study compared clinical characteristics and survival among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) who received anticoagulant therapy with those who did not (Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2013 Aug 1;30[2]:121-7). Those who got the treatment had worse survival outcomes at 1 and 3 years than did those who received no therapy (84% vs. 53% and 89% vs. 64%, respectively).

In 2016, a post hoc analysis of three placebo-controlled studies determined that any anticoagulant use independently increased the risk of death among patients with IPF, compared with nonuse: 15.6% vs 6.3% all-cause mortality (Eur Respir J. 2016. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02087-2015).

But these investigations didn’t parse out the types of anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) is much more common now, however, and Dr. King and colleagues wanted to find out how warfarin and DOAC compared.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation’s database and compared the risk of lung transplant and death for patients on anticoagulation or no anticoagulation and for those receiving DOACs versus warfarin versus no anticoagulation.

The study comprised 1,918 patients, 91% of whom were not on anticoagulation therapy. The remaining 164 were either taking DOAC (n = 83) or warfarin (n = 81). Both of these groups were significantly older than those not on anticoagulation (70 vs. 67 years). As expected , they were significantly more likely to have cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, or pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis and significantly more likely to be on immunosuppressant therapy or steroids. Their diffusing capacity of lung for carbon dioxide was also significantly lower.

There were no significant lung disease–related differences in anticoagulation therapy, other than a trend toward more use among those with connective tissue disease–associated interstitial lung disease.

Over 2 years, the entire cohort experienced 110 deaths (5.7%), 52 transplants (2.7%), and 29 withdrawals (1.5%). Among patients with IPF, there were 80 deaths (6.7%), 43 transplants (3.6%) and 20 withdrawals (1.7%).

In an unadjusted analysis, anticoagulation more than doubled the risk of an event, compared with no anticoagulation (hazard ratio, 2.4). This was slightly attenuated, but still significant, in a multivariate model that controlled for age, gender, oxygen use, gastroesophageal reflux disease, obstructive sleep apnea, arrhythmia, cancer, heart failure, obesity, venous thromboembolism, and antifibrotics (HR, 1.88).

A second whole-cohort analysis looked at the survival ratios for both warfarin and DOAC, compared with no treatment. In the fully adjusted model, warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk HR (2.28) but DOAC was not.

The investigators then examined risk in only patients with lung disease. Among those with IPF, the fully adjusted model showed that warfarin nearly tripled the risk of transplant or death (HR, 2.8), while DOAC had no significant effect.

The reason for this association remains unclear, Dr. King said. “Renal failure may be a big reason patients get warfarin instead of DOAC. It’s difficult to say whether these patients were frail or prone to bleeding. Even something like the care team not being as up to date with treatment could be affecting the numbers. And is it the direct effect of warfarin on fibrotic lung disease? Or maybe DOAC has some beneficial effect on pulmonary fibrosis? We don’t know.

“But what we can take away from this is that warfarin is associated with worse outcomes than DOAC in patients with IPF. It seems reasonable to use DOAC over warfarin if there’s no specific contraindication to DOAC. If you have a patient with pulmonary thrombosis who has indications for anticoagulation I would use DOAC, based on the evidence that we now have available.”

Dr. King had no disclosures.

[email protected]

DALLAS – Warfarin appears to increase the risk of lung transplant or death for patients with fibrotic lung disease who need anticoagulation therapy, Christopher King, MD, said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Compared with direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC), warfarin doubled the risk of those outcomes, even after the researchers controlled for multiple morbidities that accompany the need for anticoagulation, said Dr. King, medical director of the transplant and advanced lung disease critical care program at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital.

“The need for anticoagulation in patients with interstitial lung disease is already associated with an increased risk of death or transplant,” he said. Warfarin – but not oral anticoagulation – seems to increase that risk even more “no matter how you analyze it,” he said.

“We know now that fibrosis and coagulation are entwined, and there’s background epidemiologic data showing an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism and acute coronary syndrome in patients with pulmonary fibrosis. This suggests that a dysregulated coagulation cascade may play a role in the pathogenesis of fibrosis.”

The relationship has been explored for the last decade or so. Two recent meta-analyses came to similar conclusions.

In 2013, a 125-patient retrospective cohort study compared clinical characteristics and survival among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) who received anticoagulant therapy with those who did not (Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2013 Aug 1;30[2]:121-7). Those who got the treatment had worse survival outcomes at 1 and 3 years than did those who received no therapy (84% vs. 53% and 89% vs. 64%, respectively).

In 2016, a post hoc analysis of three placebo-controlled studies determined that any anticoagulant use independently increased the risk of death among patients with IPF, compared with nonuse: 15.6% vs 6.3% all-cause mortality (Eur Respir J. 2016. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02087-2015).

But these investigations didn’t parse out the types of anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) is much more common now, however, and Dr. King and colleagues wanted to find out how warfarin and DOAC compared.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation’s database and compared the risk of lung transplant and death for patients on anticoagulation or no anticoagulation and for those receiving DOACs versus warfarin versus no anticoagulation.

The study comprised 1,918 patients, 91% of whom were not on anticoagulation therapy. The remaining 164 were either taking DOAC (n = 83) or warfarin (n = 81). Both of these groups were significantly older than those not on anticoagulation (70 vs. 67 years). As expected , they were significantly more likely to have cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, or pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis and significantly more likely to be on immunosuppressant therapy or steroids. Their diffusing capacity of lung for carbon dioxide was also significantly lower.

There were no significant lung disease–related differences in anticoagulation therapy, other than a trend toward more use among those with connective tissue disease–associated interstitial lung disease.

Over 2 years, the entire cohort experienced 110 deaths (5.7%), 52 transplants (2.7%), and 29 withdrawals (1.5%). Among patients with IPF, there were 80 deaths (6.7%), 43 transplants (3.6%) and 20 withdrawals (1.7%).

In an unadjusted analysis, anticoagulation more than doubled the risk of an event, compared with no anticoagulation (hazard ratio, 2.4). This was slightly attenuated, but still significant, in a multivariate model that controlled for age, gender, oxygen use, gastroesophageal reflux disease, obstructive sleep apnea, arrhythmia, cancer, heart failure, obesity, venous thromboembolism, and antifibrotics (HR, 1.88).

A second whole-cohort analysis looked at the survival ratios for both warfarin and DOAC, compared with no treatment. In the fully adjusted model, warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk HR (2.28) but DOAC was not.

The investigators then examined risk in only patients with lung disease. Among those with IPF, the fully adjusted model showed that warfarin nearly tripled the risk of transplant or death (HR, 2.8), while DOAC had no significant effect.

The reason for this association remains unclear, Dr. King said. “Renal failure may be a big reason patients get warfarin instead of DOAC. It’s difficult to say whether these patients were frail or prone to bleeding. Even something like the care team not being as up to date with treatment could be affecting the numbers. And is it the direct effect of warfarin on fibrotic lung disease? Or maybe DOAC has some beneficial effect on pulmonary fibrosis? We don’t know.

“But what we can take away from this is that warfarin is associated with worse outcomes than DOAC in patients with IPF. It seems reasonable to use DOAC over warfarin if there’s no specific contraindication to DOAC. If you have a patient with pulmonary thrombosis who has indications for anticoagulation I would use DOAC, based on the evidence that we now have available.”

Dr. King had no disclosures.

[email protected]

DALLAS – Warfarin appears to increase the risk of lung transplant or death for patients with fibrotic lung disease who need anticoagulation therapy, Christopher King, MD, said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Compared with direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC), warfarin doubled the risk of those outcomes, even after the researchers controlled for multiple morbidities that accompany the need for anticoagulation, said Dr. King, medical director of the transplant and advanced lung disease critical care program at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Hospital.

“The need for anticoagulation in patients with interstitial lung disease is already associated with an increased risk of death or transplant,” he said. Warfarin – but not oral anticoagulation – seems to increase that risk even more “no matter how you analyze it,” he said.

“We know now that fibrosis and coagulation are entwined, and there’s background epidemiologic data showing an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism and acute coronary syndrome in patients with pulmonary fibrosis. This suggests that a dysregulated coagulation cascade may play a role in the pathogenesis of fibrosis.”

The relationship has been explored for the last decade or so. Two recent meta-analyses came to similar conclusions.

In 2013, a 125-patient retrospective cohort study compared clinical characteristics and survival among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) who received anticoagulant therapy with those who did not (Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2013 Aug 1;30[2]:121-7). Those who got the treatment had worse survival outcomes at 1 and 3 years than did those who received no therapy (84% vs. 53% and 89% vs. 64%, respectively).

In 2016, a post hoc analysis of three placebo-controlled studies determined that any anticoagulant use independently increased the risk of death among patients with IPF, compared with nonuse: 15.6% vs 6.3% all-cause mortality (Eur Respir J. 2016. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02087-2015).

But these investigations didn’t parse out the types of anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) is much more common now, however, and Dr. King and colleagues wanted to find out how warfarin and DOAC compared.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation’s database and compared the risk of lung transplant and death for patients on anticoagulation or no anticoagulation and for those receiving DOACs versus warfarin versus no anticoagulation.

The study comprised 1,918 patients, 91% of whom were not on anticoagulation therapy. The remaining 164 were either taking DOAC (n = 83) or warfarin (n = 81). Both of these groups were significantly older than those not on anticoagulation (70 vs. 67 years). As expected , they were significantly more likely to have cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, or pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis and significantly more likely to be on immunosuppressant therapy or steroids. Their diffusing capacity of lung for carbon dioxide was also significantly lower.

There were no significant lung disease–related differences in anticoagulation therapy, other than a trend toward more use among those with connective tissue disease–associated interstitial lung disease.

Over 2 years, the entire cohort experienced 110 deaths (5.7%), 52 transplants (2.7%), and 29 withdrawals (1.5%). Among patients with IPF, there were 80 deaths (6.7%), 43 transplants (3.6%) and 20 withdrawals (1.7%).

In an unadjusted analysis, anticoagulation more than doubled the risk of an event, compared with no anticoagulation (hazard ratio, 2.4). This was slightly attenuated, but still significant, in a multivariate model that controlled for age, gender, oxygen use, gastroesophageal reflux disease, obstructive sleep apnea, arrhythmia, cancer, heart failure, obesity, venous thromboembolism, and antifibrotics (HR, 1.88).

A second whole-cohort analysis looked at the survival ratios for both warfarin and DOAC, compared with no treatment. In the fully adjusted model, warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk HR (2.28) but DOAC was not.

The investigators then examined risk in only patients with lung disease. Among those with IPF, the fully adjusted model showed that warfarin nearly tripled the risk of transplant or death (HR, 2.8), while DOAC had no significant effect.

The reason for this association remains unclear, Dr. King said. “Renal failure may be a big reason patients get warfarin instead of DOAC. It’s difficult to say whether these patients were frail or prone to bleeding. Even something like the care team not being as up to date with treatment could be affecting the numbers. And is it the direct effect of warfarin on fibrotic lung disease? Or maybe DOAC has some beneficial effect on pulmonary fibrosis? We don’t know.

“But what we can take away from this is that warfarin is associated with worse outcomes than DOAC in patients with IPF. It seems reasonable to use DOAC over warfarin if there’s no specific contraindication to DOAC. If you have a patient with pulmonary thrombosis who has indications for anticoagulation I would use DOAC, based on the evidence that we now have available.”

Dr. King had no disclosures.

[email protected]

DALLAS – Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective, feasible treatment for infants with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to a study.

“Positive airway pressure is a common treatment for OSA in children,” wrote Christopher Cielo, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Sleep Center, and his colleagues. But the authors note that treating infants with CPAP can be more challenging because infants have less consolidated sleep, may have greater medical complexity, and have smaller faces that make mask fit, titration, and adherence difficult.

The researchers therefore compared use of CPAP for OSA on 32 infants who began the therapy before age 6 months and 102 school-age children who began the therapy between ages 5 and 10 years, all treated at a single sleep center between March 2013 and September 2018.

Only one of the infants (mean age 3 months) had obesity, compared with 37.3% of the school-age children (mean age 7.7 years), but more of the infants (50%) had a craniofacial abnormality compared with the older children (8.9%) (P less than .001).

None of the infants had had an adenotonsillectomy, whereas the majority of the older children (80.4%) had (P less than .001). Rates of neurological abnormality and genetic syndromes (including Down syndrome) were similar between the groups.

In baseline polysomnograms, infants had a higher mean obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) compared with older children (22.6 vs. 12; P less than .001) and a slightly, but significantly, lower oxygen saturation nadir (81% vs. 87%; P = .002).

Only 9.8% of the children and none of the infants used autotitrating. Similar proportions of both groups – 90.6% of infants and 93.1% of children – achieved a mean AHI below 5 with CPAP treatment, and both CPAP pressure and mean oxygen saturation nadir at final pressure were similar in both groups.

Adherence was higher in infants than in children: Infants used CPAP for at least some time for 93.3% of nights compared with children (83.4%) (P = .009), and infants used CPAP for more than 4 hours for 78.4% of nights, compared with 59.5% of nights among children (P = .04).

Barriers to adherence reported by caregivers were similar between both groups. The most common barrier was child behavior, such as crying or refusing the CPAP, which 25% of infant caregivers and 35.3% of child caregivers reported. While a higher proportion of caregivers reported a poor mask fit for infants (15.6%) than for children (10.8%), the difference was not significant (P = .47). Rates of skin irritation also did not significantly differ between the groups.

In addition to the limitations accompanying any retrospective analysis from a single center, another study limitation was the inability to account for differences in total sleep time between infants and school-age children in comparing CPAP usage.

The National Institutes of Health and the Francis Family Foundation funded the research. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Cielo CM et al. ATS 2019. Abstract A2786.

DALLAS – Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective, feasible treatment for infants with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to a study.

“Positive airway pressure is a common treatment for OSA in children,” wrote Christopher Cielo, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Sleep Center, and his colleagues. But the authors note that treating infants with CPAP can be more challenging because infants have less consolidated sleep, may have greater medical complexity, and have smaller faces that make mask fit, titration, and adherence difficult.

The researchers therefore compared use of CPAP for OSA on 32 infants who began the therapy before age 6 months and 102 school-age children who began the therapy between ages 5 and 10 years, all treated at a single sleep center between March 2013 and September 2018.

Only one of the infants (mean age 3 months) had obesity, compared with 37.3% of the school-age children (mean age 7.7 years), but more of the infants (50%) had a craniofacial abnormality compared with the older children (8.9%) (P less than .001).

None of the infants had had an adenotonsillectomy, whereas the majority of the older children (80.4%) had (P less than .001). Rates of neurological abnormality and genetic syndromes (including Down syndrome) were similar between the groups.

In baseline polysomnograms, infants had a higher mean obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) compared with older children (22.6 vs. 12; P less than .001) and a slightly, but significantly, lower oxygen saturation nadir (81% vs. 87%; P = .002).

Only 9.8% of the children and none of the infants used autotitrating. Similar proportions of both groups – 90.6% of infants and 93.1% of children – achieved a mean AHI below 5 with CPAP treatment, and both CPAP pressure and mean oxygen saturation nadir at final pressure were similar in both groups.

Adherence was higher in infants than in children: Infants used CPAP for at least some time for 93.3% of nights compared with children (83.4%) (P = .009), and infants used CPAP for more than 4 hours for 78.4% of nights, compared with 59.5% of nights among children (P = .04).

Barriers to adherence reported by caregivers were similar between both groups. The most common barrier was child behavior, such as crying or refusing the CPAP, which 25% of infant caregivers and 35.3% of child caregivers reported. While a higher proportion of caregivers reported a poor mask fit for infants (15.6%) than for children (10.8%), the difference was not significant (P = .47). Rates of skin irritation also did not significantly differ between the groups.

In addition to the limitations accompanying any retrospective analysis from a single center, another study limitation was the inability to account for differences in total sleep time between infants and school-age children in comparing CPAP usage.

The National Institutes of Health and the Francis Family Foundation funded the research. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Cielo CM et al. ATS 2019. Abstract A2786.

DALLAS – Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective, feasible treatment for infants with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to a study.

“Positive airway pressure is a common treatment for OSA in children,” wrote Christopher Cielo, DO, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Sleep Center, and his colleagues. But the authors note that treating infants with CPAP can be more challenging because infants have less consolidated sleep, may have greater medical complexity, and have smaller faces that make mask fit, titration, and adherence difficult.

The researchers therefore compared use of CPAP for OSA on 32 infants who began the therapy before age 6 months and 102 school-age children who began the therapy between ages 5 and 10 years, all treated at a single sleep center between March 2013 and September 2018.

Only one of the infants (mean age 3 months) had obesity, compared with 37.3% of the school-age children (mean age 7.7 years), but more of the infants (50%) had a craniofacial abnormality compared with the older children (8.9%) (P less than .001).

None of the infants had had an adenotonsillectomy, whereas the majority of the older children (80.4%) had (P less than .001). Rates of neurological abnormality and genetic syndromes (including Down syndrome) were similar between the groups.

In baseline polysomnograms, infants had a higher mean obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) compared with older children (22.6 vs. 12; P less than .001) and a slightly, but significantly, lower oxygen saturation nadir (81% vs. 87%; P = .002).

Only 9.8% of the children and none of the infants used autotitrating. Similar proportions of both groups – 90.6% of infants and 93.1% of children – achieved a mean AHI below 5 with CPAP treatment, and both CPAP pressure and mean oxygen saturation nadir at final pressure were similar in both groups.

Adherence was higher in infants than in children: Infants used CPAP for at least some time for 93.3% of nights compared with children (83.4%) (P = .009), and infants used CPAP for more than 4 hours for 78.4% of nights, compared with 59.5% of nights among children (P = .04).

Barriers to adherence reported by caregivers were similar between both groups. The most common barrier was child behavior, such as crying or refusing the CPAP, which 25% of infant caregivers and 35.3% of child caregivers reported. While a higher proportion of caregivers reported a poor mask fit for infants (15.6%) than for children (10.8%), the difference was not significant (P = .47). Rates of skin irritation also did not significantly differ between the groups.

In addition to the limitations accompanying any retrospective analysis from a single center, another study limitation was the inability to account for differences in total sleep time between infants and school-age children in comparing CPAP usage.

The National Institutes of Health and the Francis Family Foundation funded the research. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Cielo CM et al. ATS 2019. Abstract A2786.

DALLAS – Allowing public and private schools to store multiuse stock albuterol inhalers for students with asthma is a legally and medically feasible way to provide students with rescue medication without their need to leave school, according to a recent study.

moodboard/ThinkStock

“Stakeholder coalitions can facilitate the large-scale adoption of stock inhaler programs in schools,” concluded Ashley A. Lowe, MSPH, a senior research specialist and PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and colleagues in a poster at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.“These programs improve access to rescue medication while returning students back to their classroom.”

The Arizona legislature passed H.B. 2208, “Stock Inhalers for Schools” in March 2017 to allow schools to store and administer albuterol sulfate while indemnifying trained staff against liability when they allowed students to use the inhaler in good faith. A stock inhaler can used by different students because of its disposable valved-holding chambers.

“Such laws allow schools to overcome the legal obstacles that make it difficult for them to ensure such medication is readily available to all children experiencing respiratory distress,” the authors wrote. They assessed the use and outcomes of schools’ storage of stock inhalers during the 2017-2018 school year in Pima County, Arizona.

Of the 213 public, 90 charter, and 61 private/parochial schools in Pima County, 246 (67%) total schools participated, including nearly all of the public schools (93%), nearly half the private/parochial schools (49%), and 17% of the charter schools. A total of 134,251 students had access to a stock inhaler at school.

Each participating school received a kit containing a 60-dose albuterol sulfate inhaler, 10 valved-holding chambers, a signed standing medical order, a standardized emergency protocol for albuterol use, access to an online training curriculum and template resources, along with technical support.

Each time a school used the stock inhaler, they documented whether an asthma diagnosis was known or not, total puffs administered and where the student went next – returned to class, sent home with caregiver, 911 call without transport, or 911 call with EMS transport.

Based on data analyzed from 240 schools, the stock inhalers were used 1,032 times at 152 schools during the study period, predominantly at public schools (97%) and by students with a known asthma diagnosis (82%). In 12.2% of cases, the student did not have a known asthma diagnosis, and 5.8% of the time, asthma diagnosis status was unknown. The students received a mean 2.7 puffs at each use.

Ethnicity and race data of those students who used the inhalers was not complete. Most of the students for whom ethnicity data were available (n = 343) and who used the inhaler were Hispanic/Latino (69.8%) independent of race. Based only on the 437 students for whom data on race were available, students using the inhaler included 41% white, 11.7% black, 3.1% Native American/Alaskan Native, 1% Asian and 0.6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

Among the 915 uses of the inhaler for which subsequent student location was available, the majority of students (84%) returned to their classroom after using the inhaler. Only five were transported to a medical facility via EMS following a 911 call, and 911 was called for one student who did not receive EMS transport.

According to the Allergy & Asthma Network, the following states have school stock albuterol laws: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.*

The research was funded by Banner–University Medical Center Tucson, Thayer Medical Corporation, and the Asthma & Airway Disease Research Center. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Lowe AA et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A4070.

* This article was updated on July 15, 2019.

DALLAS – Allowing public and private schools to store multiuse stock albuterol inhalers for students with asthma is a legally and medically feasible way to provide students with rescue medication without their need to leave school, according to a recent study.

moodboard/ThinkStock

“Stakeholder coalitions can facilitate the large-scale adoption of stock inhaler programs in schools,” concluded Ashley A. Lowe, MSPH, a senior research specialist and PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and colleagues in a poster at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.“These programs improve access to rescue medication while returning students back to their classroom.”

The Arizona legislature passed H.B. 2208, “Stock Inhalers for Schools” in March 2017 to allow schools to store and administer albuterol sulfate while indemnifying trained staff against liability when they allowed students to use the inhaler in good faith. A stock inhaler can used by different students because of its disposable valved-holding chambers.

“Such laws allow schools to overcome the legal obstacles that make it difficult for them to ensure such medication is readily available to all children experiencing respiratory distress,” the authors wrote. They assessed the use and outcomes of schools’ storage of stock inhalers during the 2017-2018 school year in Pima County, Arizona.

Of the 213 public, 90 charter, and 61 private/parochial schools in Pima County, 246 (67%) total schools participated, including nearly all of the public schools (93%), nearly half the private/parochial schools (49%), and 17% of the charter schools. A total of 134,251 students had access to a stock inhaler at school.

Each participating school received a kit containing a 60-dose albuterol sulfate inhaler, 10 valved-holding chambers, a signed standing medical order, a standardized emergency protocol for albuterol use, access to an online training curriculum and template resources, along with technical support.

Each time a school used the stock inhaler, they documented whether an asthma diagnosis was known or not, total puffs administered and where the student went next – returned to class, sent home with caregiver, 911 call without transport, or 911 call with EMS transport.

Based on data analyzed from 240 schools, the stock inhalers were used 1,032 times at 152 schools during the study period, predominantly at public schools (97%) and by students with a known asthma diagnosis (82%). In 12.2% of cases, the student did not have a known asthma diagnosis, and 5.8% of the time, asthma diagnosis status was unknown. The students received a mean 2.7 puffs at each use.

Ethnicity and race data of those students who used the inhalers was not complete. Most of the students for whom ethnicity data were available (n = 343) and who used the inhaler were Hispanic/Latino (69.8%) independent of race. Based only on the 437 students for whom data on race were available, students using the inhaler included 41% white, 11.7% black, 3.1% Native American/Alaskan Native, 1% Asian and 0.6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

Among the 915 uses of the inhaler for which subsequent student location was available, the majority of students (84%) returned to their classroom after using the inhaler. Only five were transported to a medical facility via EMS following a 911 call, and 911 was called for one student who did not receive EMS transport.

According to the Allergy & Asthma Network, the following states have school stock albuterol laws: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.*

The research was funded by Banner–University Medical Center Tucson, Thayer Medical Corporation, and the Asthma & Airway Disease Research Center. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Lowe AA et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A4070.

* This article was updated on July 15, 2019.

DALLAS – Allowing public and private schools to store multiuse stock albuterol inhalers for students with asthma is a legally and medically feasible way to provide students with rescue medication without their need to leave school, according to a recent study.

moodboard/ThinkStock

“Stakeholder coalitions can facilitate the large-scale adoption of stock inhaler programs in schools,” concluded Ashley A. Lowe, MSPH, a senior research specialist and PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and colleagues in a poster at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.“These programs improve access to rescue medication while returning students back to their classroom.”

The Arizona legislature passed H.B. 2208, “Stock Inhalers for Schools” in March 2017 to allow schools to store and administer albuterol sulfate while indemnifying trained staff against liability when they allowed students to use the inhaler in good faith. A stock inhaler can used by different students because of its disposable valved-holding chambers.

“Such laws allow schools to overcome the legal obstacles that make it difficult for them to ensure such medication is readily available to all children experiencing respiratory distress,” the authors wrote. They assessed the use and outcomes of schools’ storage of stock inhalers during the 2017-2018 school year in Pima County, Arizona.

Of the 213 public, 90 charter, and 61 private/parochial schools in Pima County, 246 (67%) total schools participated, including nearly all of the public schools (93%), nearly half the private/parochial schools (49%), and 17% of the charter schools. A total of 134,251 students had access to a stock inhaler at school.

Each participating school received a kit containing a 60-dose albuterol sulfate inhaler, 10 valved-holding chambers, a signed standing medical order, a standardized emergency protocol for albuterol use, access to an online training curriculum and template resources, along with technical support.

Each time a school used the stock inhaler, they documented whether an asthma diagnosis was known or not, total puffs administered and where the student went next – returned to class, sent home with caregiver, 911 call without transport, or 911 call with EMS transport.

Based on data analyzed from 240 schools, the stock inhalers were used 1,032 times at 152 schools during the study period, predominantly at public schools (97%) and by students with a known asthma diagnosis (82%). In 12.2% of cases, the student did not have a known asthma diagnosis, and 5.8% of the time, asthma diagnosis status was unknown. The students received a mean 2.7 puffs at each use.

Ethnicity and race data of those students who used the inhalers was not complete. Most of the students for whom ethnicity data were available (n = 343) and who used the inhaler were Hispanic/Latino (69.8%) independent of race. Based only on the 437 students for whom data on race were available, students using the inhaler included 41% white, 11.7% black, 3.1% Native American/Alaskan Native, 1% Asian and 0.6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

Among the 915 uses of the inhaler for which subsequent student location was available, the majority of students (84%) returned to their classroom after using the inhaler. Only five were transported to a medical facility via EMS following a 911 call, and 911 was called for one student who did not receive EMS transport.

According to the Allergy & Asthma Network, the following states have school stock albuterol laws: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.*

The research was funded by Banner–University Medical Center Tucson, Thayer Medical Corporation, and the Asthma & Airway Disease Research Center. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Lowe AA et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A4070.

* This article was updated on July 15, 2019.

DALLAS – Children with cystic fibrosis or asthma report sleep interruptions 1 or 2 nights a week caused by their symptoms, but nighttime use of technology may contribute more to sleep problems, according to a new study.

“Routinely addressing sleep concerns, sleep hygiene, and mental health is important in the care of pediatric patients with chronic illness,” concluded Lauren Greenawald, DO, and colleagues at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del. The researchers presented their findings on sleep quality and mental health of children with asthma or cystic fibrosis (CF) at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Dr. Greenawald’s team screened 31 children (aged 7-17 years) with CF and 34 children with asthma for anxiety, depression, and ADHD. The researchers also assessed the children’s sleep hygiene, sleep quality, and physical and emotional symptoms. Instruments included the validated Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric Anxiety Survey, plus an investigator-designed survey about sleep habits.

Just over half the children with CF (52%) and 14% of children with asthma had mental health diagnoses (P less than .01). The same proportion of patients with CF (52%) and nearly a third of patients with asthma (30%) reported they often or always felt they needed more sleep based on the PDSS. Further, 42% of children with CF and 55% of children with asthma said their symptoms kept them awake 1-2 nights a week. Only 6% of asthma patients and no CF patients said their symptoms keep them awake often, 3-4 nights a week. Just over a third of children with CF (36%) and 46% of those with asthma thought they would sleep better if they didn’t have a medical condition.

Yet, for the vast majority of children, the sleeping problems did not appear to result from worry about their illness: 85% of those with CF and nearly all of those with asthma (97%) did not have trouble sleeping as a result of anxiety about their medical condition.

The researchers identified nighttime use of technology that may affect the children’s sleep in ways similar to that of the general population. Many of the participants – 68% of those with CF and 47% of those with asthma – reported texting or using social media or other technology an hour before going to bed. In addition, 55% of those with CF and 25% of those with asthma said they use their phone after the lights are out at least 5 nights a week. One in five of those with CF (20%) said they go to bed later than they planned at least 5 days a week because of social media or texting, though only 6% of those with asthma said the same.

Despite the children’s reports of inadequate sleep, very few – 3.2% of children with CF and 5.9% of children with asthma – reported feeling low daytime energy.

The use of child self-reporting in the presence of family members is a study limitation, including potentially introducing social desirability bias.

The research was funded by the Nemours Summer Undergraduate Research Program. The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Greenawald L et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A2788.

DALLAS – Children with cystic fibrosis or asthma report sleep interruptions 1 or 2 nights a week caused by their symptoms, but nighttime use of technology may contribute more to sleep problems, according to a new study.

“Routinely addressing sleep concerns, sleep hygiene, and mental health is important in the care of pediatric patients with chronic illness,” concluded Lauren Greenawald, DO, and colleagues at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del. The researchers presented their findings on sleep quality and mental health of children with asthma or cystic fibrosis (CF) at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Dr. Greenawald’s team screened 31 children (aged 7-17 years) with CF and 34 children with asthma for anxiety, depression, and ADHD. The researchers also assessed the children’s sleep hygiene, sleep quality, and physical and emotional symptoms. Instruments included the validated Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric Anxiety Survey, plus an investigator-designed survey about sleep habits.

Just over half the children with CF (52%) and 14% of children with asthma had mental health diagnoses (P less than .01). The same proportion of patients with CF (52%) and nearly a third of patients with asthma (30%) reported they often or always felt they needed more sleep based on the PDSS. Further, 42% of children with CF and 55% of children with asthma said their symptoms kept them awake 1-2 nights a week. Only 6% of asthma patients and no CF patients said their symptoms keep them awake often, 3-4 nights a week. Just over a third of children with CF (36%) and 46% of those with asthma thought they would sleep better if they didn’t have a medical condition.

Yet, for the vast majority of children, the sleeping problems did not appear to result from worry about their illness: 85% of those with CF and nearly all of those with asthma (97%) did not have trouble sleeping as a result of anxiety about their medical condition.

The researchers identified nighttime use of technology that may affect the children’s sleep in ways similar to that of the general population. Many of the participants – 68% of those with CF and 47% of those with asthma – reported texting or using social media or other technology an hour before going to bed. In addition, 55% of those with CF and 25% of those with asthma said they use their phone after the lights are out at least 5 nights a week. One in five of those with CF (20%) said they go to bed later than they planned at least 5 days a week because of social media or texting, though only 6% of those with asthma said the same.

Despite the children’s reports of inadequate sleep, very few – 3.2% of children with CF and 5.9% of children with asthma – reported feeling low daytime energy.

The use of child self-reporting in the presence of family members is a study limitation, including potentially introducing social desirability bias.

The research was funded by the Nemours Summer Undergraduate Research Program. The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Greenawald L et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A2788.

DALLAS – Children with cystic fibrosis or asthma report sleep interruptions 1 or 2 nights a week caused by their symptoms, but nighttime use of technology may contribute more to sleep problems, according to a new study.

“Routinely addressing sleep concerns, sleep hygiene, and mental health is important in the care of pediatric patients with chronic illness,” concluded Lauren Greenawald, DO, and colleagues at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del. The researchers presented their findings on sleep quality and mental health of children with asthma or cystic fibrosis (CF) at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Dr. Greenawald’s team screened 31 children (aged 7-17 years) with CF and 34 children with asthma for anxiety, depression, and ADHD. The researchers also assessed the children’s sleep hygiene, sleep quality, and physical and emotional symptoms. Instruments included the validated Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric Anxiety Survey, plus an investigator-designed survey about sleep habits.

Just over half the children with CF (52%) and 14% of children with asthma had mental health diagnoses (P less than .01). The same proportion of patients with CF (52%) and nearly a third of patients with asthma (30%) reported they often or always felt they needed more sleep based on the PDSS. Further, 42% of children with CF and 55% of children with asthma said their symptoms kept them awake 1-2 nights a week. Only 6% of asthma patients and no CF patients said their symptoms keep them awake often, 3-4 nights a week. Just over a third of children with CF (36%) and 46% of those with asthma thought they would sleep better if they didn’t have a medical condition.

Yet, for the vast majority of children, the sleeping problems did not appear to result from worry about their illness: 85% of those with CF and nearly all of those with asthma (97%) did not have trouble sleeping as a result of anxiety about their medical condition.

The researchers identified nighttime use of technology that may affect the children’s sleep in ways similar to that of the general population. Many of the participants – 68% of those with CF and 47% of those with asthma – reported texting or using social media or other technology an hour before going to bed. In addition, 55% of those with CF and 25% of those with asthma said they use their phone after the lights are out at least 5 nights a week. One in five of those with CF (20%) said they go to bed later than they planned at least 5 days a week because of social media or texting, though only 6% of those with asthma said the same.

Despite the children’s reports of inadequate sleep, very few – 3.2% of children with CF and 5.9% of children with asthma – reported feeling low daytime energy.

The use of child self-reporting in the presence of family members is a study limitation, including potentially introducing social desirability bias.

The research was funded by the Nemours Summer Undergraduate Research Program. The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Greenawald L et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A2788.

DALLAS – A molecule that boosts innate viral immunity may protect elderly people with asthma from the root cause of most exacerbations – viral respiratory tract infections.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Dubbed RTB101, the oral medication is a selective, potent inhibitor of target of rapamycin complex 1 (TORC1). In phase 2b data presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, RTB101 decreased by 52% the number of elderly subjects with severe, lab-confirmed respiratory tract infections (RTI) symptoms.

But the molecule was even more effective in patients with asthma aged 65 years and older, Joan Mannick, MD, said in an interview during the meeting. In this group, it reduced by 69% the percentage of subjects who developed RTIs and reduced the rate of infection by about 79%, compared with placebo.

“The core cause of asthma exacerbations in these patients is viral respiratory tract infection,” said Dr. Mannick, chief medical officer of resTORbio, the Boston company developing RTB101. “About 80% of the viruses detected in these infections are rhinoviruses, and there are 170 rhinovirus serotypes. We have never been able to develop a vaccine against rhinovirus, and we have no treatment other than to treat the inflammation caused by the infection.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mortality records confirm the impact of viral respiratory infections on older people who experience asthma exacerbations: 6 of 10,000 will die, compared with less than 2 per 10,000 for all other age groups. Decreasing the number of these infections in older people with asthma would prevent morbidity and mortality and save considerable health care dollars.

“One of the reasons that asthmatics have such difficulty when they get respiratory infections is that they seem to have deficient antiviral immunity in the airways,” Dr. Mannick said. She pointed to a 2008 study of bronchial epithelial cells from both patients with asthma and healthy controls. When inoculated with rhinovirus, the cells from asthmatic airways were unable to mount a healthy immune response and were particularly deficient in producing interferon-beta.

By inhibiting mammalian TORC1 (mTORC1), RBT101 also inhibits sterol regulatory element binding transcription factor 2, a pathway that influences cholesterol synthesis. Cells perceive cholesterol synthesis attenuation as a threat, Dr. Mannick said, and react by up-regulating a number of immune response genes – including some specifically antiviral genes that up-regulate interferon-alpha and -beta production and immune cytokine signaling pathways.

RTB101 is not a particularly new molecule; Novartis originally investigated it as an anticancer agent. “It failed, because it was too selective for mTORC1,” Dr. Mannick said. After Novartis dropped the molecule, resTORbio, a Novartis spin-off, began to investigate it as an immunotherapy for RTIs, particularly in patients with asthma.

reSTORbio’s phase 2 studies on RTB101 comprised 264 healthy subjects aged 65 years and older, who received placebo or 10 mg RTB101 daily for 6 weeks, during cold and flu season. They were followed for a year, confirming the antiviral gene up-regulation. Treatment was also associated with a 42% reduction in the rate of respiratory tract infections.

Conversations with the Food and Drug Administration and payers collected, Dr. Mannick said. “They said that where this drug could really make a difference was if it could decrease these infections in high-risk elderly, who are expensive to treat. So, we targeted people 65 years and older with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smokers, and people who are 85 years or older.”

The phase 2b trial comprised 652 of these elderly high-risk subjects randomized to the following treatment arms: RTB101 5 mg once daily (n = 61), RTB101 10 mg once daily (n = 176), RTB101 10 mg b.i.d. (n = 120), RTB101 10 mg plus everolimus 0.1 mg daily (n = 115), or matching placebo (n = 180) over 16 weeks, during the entire cold and flu season. The primary endpoint was laboratory-confirmed RTIs in all groups.

The RTB101 10-mg, once-daily group had the best results with a 30.6% reduction in the percentage of patients with lab-confirmed RTIs, compared with placebo, and a 52% reduction in the percentage with severe symptoms.

A subgroup analysis found even more benefit to those with asthma. Among these patients, RTB101 effected a 58.2% decrease in patients with RTIs, and a 66.4% decrease in the rate of infections, compared with placebo.

RTB101 was most effective against rhinoviruses, but it also prevented RTIs associated with influenza A and coronavirus OC43. It also decreased the incidence of RTIs caused by respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza 4, influenza B, metapneumovirus, or other coronavirus serotypes.

There were no safety signals, Dr. Mannick noted. Adverse events were similar in both placebo and active groups, and none were deemed related to the study drug. About 5% of each group discontinued the drug because an adverse event.

Plans for a phase 3 trial are underway. A phase 3, placebo-controlled study in the Southern Hemisphere is now ongoing, during the winter cold and flu season. The Northern Hemisphere phase 3 will commence fall and winter of 2019.

Whether RBT101 can help younger people with asthma is an open question. Elderly patients not only have the asthma-related immune deficiency, but also the general age-related immune issues. Younger patients, however, still express the same asthma-related impairment of bronchial immunity.

“We would like to investigate this in younger people and in children, but that will have to wait until our other phase 3 studies are complete,” Dr. Mannick said.

The trial was sponsored by resTORbio.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mannick J et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A2623.

CORRECTION 5/24/2019 The article was corrected to state a decreased the incidence of RTIs caused by respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza 4, influenza B, metapneumovirus, or other coronavirus serotypes.

DALLAS – A molecule that boosts innate viral immunity may protect elderly people with asthma from the root cause of most exacerbations – viral respiratory tract infections.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Dubbed RTB101, the oral medication is a selective, potent inhibitor of target of rapamycin complex 1 (TORC1). In phase 2b data presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, RTB101 decreased by 52% the number of elderly subjects with severe, lab-confirmed respiratory tract infections (RTI) symptoms.

But the molecule was even more effective in patients with asthma aged 65 years and older, Joan Mannick, MD, said in an interview during the meeting. In this group, it reduced by 69% the percentage of subjects who developed RTIs and reduced the rate of infection by about 79%, compared with placebo.

“The core cause of asthma exacerbations in these patients is viral respiratory tract infection,” said Dr. Mannick, chief medical officer of resTORbio, the Boston company developing RTB101. “About 80% of the viruses detected in these infections are rhinoviruses, and there are 170 rhinovirus serotypes. We have never been able to develop a vaccine against rhinovirus, and we have no treatment other than to treat the inflammation caused by the infection.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mortality records confirm the impact of viral respiratory infections on older people who experience asthma exacerbations: 6 of 10,000 will die, compared with less than 2 per 10,000 for all other age groups. Decreasing the number of these infections in older people with asthma would prevent morbidity and mortality and save considerable health care dollars.

“One of the reasons that asthmatics have such difficulty when they get respiratory infections is that they seem to have deficient antiviral immunity in the airways,” Dr. Mannick said. She pointed to a 2008 study of bronchial epithelial cells from both patients with asthma and healthy controls. When inoculated with rhinovirus, the cells from asthmatic airways were unable to mount a healthy immune response and were particularly deficient in producing interferon-beta.

By inhibiting mammalian TORC1 (mTORC1), RBT101 also inhibits sterol regulatory element binding transcription factor 2, a pathway that influences cholesterol synthesis. Cells perceive cholesterol synthesis attenuation as a threat, Dr. Mannick said, and react by up-regulating a number of immune response genes – including some specifically antiviral genes that up-regulate interferon-alpha and -beta production and immune cytokine signaling pathways.

RTB101 is not a particularly new molecule; Novartis originally investigated it as an anticancer agent. “It failed, because it was too selective for mTORC1,” Dr. Mannick said. After Novartis dropped the molecule, resTORbio, a Novartis spin-off, began to investigate it as an immunotherapy for RTIs, particularly in patients with asthma.

reSTORbio’s phase 2 studies on RTB101 comprised 264 healthy subjects aged 65 years and older, who received placebo or 10 mg RTB101 daily for 6 weeks, during cold and flu season. They were followed for a year, confirming the antiviral gene up-regulation. Treatment was also associated with a 42% reduction in the rate of respiratory tract infections.

Conversations with the Food and Drug Administration and payers collected, Dr. Mannick said. “They said that where this drug could really make a difference was if it could decrease these infections in high-risk elderly, who are expensive to treat. So, we targeted people 65 years and older with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smokers, and people who are 85 years or older.”

The phase 2b trial comprised 652 of these elderly high-risk subjects randomized to the following treatment arms: RTB101 5 mg once daily (n = 61), RTB101 10 mg once daily (n = 176), RTB101 10 mg b.i.d. (n = 120), RTB101 10 mg plus everolimus 0.1 mg daily (n = 115), or matching placebo (n = 180) over 16 weeks, during the entire cold and flu season. The primary endpoint was laboratory-confirmed RTIs in all groups.

The RTB101 10-mg, once-daily group had the best results with a 30.6% reduction in the percentage of patients with lab-confirmed RTIs, compared with placebo, and a 52% reduction in the percentage with severe symptoms.

A subgroup analysis found even more benefit to those with asthma. Among these patients, RTB101 effected a 58.2% decrease in patients with RTIs, and a 66.4% decrease in the rate of infections, compared with placebo.

RTB101 was most effective against rhinoviruses, but it also prevented RTIs associated with influenza A and coronavirus OC43. It also decreased the incidence of RTIs caused by respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza 4, influenza B, metapneumovirus, or other coronavirus serotypes.

There were no safety signals, Dr. Mannick noted. Adverse events were similar in both placebo and active groups, and none were deemed related to the study drug. About 5% of each group discontinued the drug because an adverse event.

Plans for a phase 3 trial are underway. A phase 3, placebo-controlled study in the Southern Hemisphere is now ongoing, during the winter cold and flu season. The Northern Hemisphere phase 3 will commence fall and winter of 2019.

Whether RBT101 can help younger people with asthma is an open question. Elderly patients not only have the asthma-related immune deficiency, but also the general age-related immune issues. Younger patients, however, still express the same asthma-related impairment of bronchial immunity.

“We would like to investigate this in younger people and in children, but that will have to wait until our other phase 3 studies are complete,” Dr. Mannick said.

The trial was sponsored by resTORbio.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mannick J et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A2623.

CORRECTION 5/24/2019 The article was corrected to state a decreased the incidence of RTIs caused by respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza 4, influenza B, metapneumovirus, or other coronavirus serotypes.

DALLAS – A molecule that boosts innate viral immunity may protect elderly people with asthma from the root cause of most exacerbations – viral respiratory tract infections.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Dubbed RTB101, the oral medication is a selective, potent inhibitor of target of rapamycin complex 1 (TORC1). In phase 2b data presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, RTB101 decreased by 52% the number of elderly subjects with severe, lab-confirmed respiratory tract infections (RTI) symptoms.

But the molecule was even more effective in patients with asthma aged 65 years and older, Joan Mannick, MD, said in an interview during the meeting. In this group, it reduced by 69% the percentage of subjects who developed RTIs and reduced the rate of infection by about 79%, compared with placebo.

“The core cause of asthma exacerbations in these patients is viral respiratory tract infection,” said Dr. Mannick, chief medical officer of resTORbio, the Boston company developing RTB101. “About 80% of the viruses detected in these infections are rhinoviruses, and there are 170 rhinovirus serotypes. We have never been able to develop a vaccine against rhinovirus, and we have no treatment other than to treat the inflammation caused by the infection.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mortality records confirm the impact of viral respiratory infections on older people who experience asthma exacerbations: 6 of 10,000 will die, compared with less than 2 per 10,000 for all other age groups. Decreasing the number of these infections in older people with asthma would prevent morbidity and mortality and save considerable health care dollars.

“One of the reasons that asthmatics have such difficulty when they get respiratory infections is that they seem to have deficient antiviral immunity in the airways,” Dr. Mannick said. She pointed to a 2008 study of bronchial epithelial cells from both patients with asthma and healthy controls. When inoculated with rhinovirus, the cells from asthmatic airways were unable to mount a healthy immune response and were particularly deficient in producing interferon-beta.

By inhibiting mammalian TORC1 (mTORC1), RBT101 also inhibits sterol regulatory element binding transcription factor 2, a pathway that influences cholesterol synthesis. Cells perceive cholesterol synthesis attenuation as a threat, Dr. Mannick said, and react by up-regulating a number of immune response genes – including some specifically antiviral genes that up-regulate interferon-alpha and -beta production and immune cytokine signaling pathways.

RTB101 is not a particularly new molecule; Novartis originally investigated it as an anticancer agent. “It failed, because it was too selective for mTORC1,” Dr. Mannick said. After Novartis dropped the molecule, resTORbio, a Novartis spin-off, began to investigate it as an immunotherapy for RTIs, particularly in patients with asthma.

reSTORbio’s phase 2 studies on RTB101 comprised 264 healthy subjects aged 65 years and older, who received placebo or 10 mg RTB101 daily for 6 weeks, during cold and flu season. They were followed for a year, confirming the antiviral gene up-regulation. Treatment was also associated with a 42% reduction in the rate of respiratory tract infections.

Conversations with the Food and Drug Administration and payers collected, Dr. Mannick said. “They said that where this drug could really make a difference was if it could decrease these infections in high-risk elderly, who are expensive to treat. So, we targeted people 65 years and older with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smokers, and people who are 85 years or older.”

The phase 2b trial comprised 652 of these elderly high-risk subjects randomized to the following treatment arms: RTB101 5 mg once daily (n = 61), RTB101 10 mg once daily (n = 176), RTB101 10 mg b.i.d. (n = 120), RTB101 10 mg plus everolimus 0.1 mg daily (n = 115), or matching placebo (n = 180) over 16 weeks, during the entire cold and flu season. The primary endpoint was laboratory-confirmed RTIs in all groups.

The RTB101 10-mg, once-daily group had the best results with a 30.6% reduction in the percentage of patients with lab-confirmed RTIs, compared with placebo, and a 52% reduction in the percentage with severe symptoms.

A subgroup analysis found even more benefit to those with asthma. Among these patients, RTB101 effected a 58.2% decrease in patients with RTIs, and a 66.4% decrease in the rate of infections, compared with placebo.

RTB101 was most effective against rhinoviruses, but it also prevented RTIs associated with influenza A and coronavirus OC43. It also decreased the incidence of RTIs caused by respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza 4, influenza B, metapneumovirus, or other coronavirus serotypes.

There were no safety signals, Dr. Mannick noted. Adverse events were similar in both placebo and active groups, and none were deemed related to the study drug. About 5% of each group discontinued the drug because an adverse event.

Plans for a phase 3 trial are underway. A phase 3, placebo-controlled study in the Southern Hemisphere is now ongoing, during the winter cold and flu season. The Northern Hemisphere phase 3 will commence fall and winter of 2019.

Whether RBT101 can help younger people with asthma is an open question. Elderly patients not only have the asthma-related immune deficiency, but also the general age-related immune issues. Younger patients, however, still express the same asthma-related impairment of bronchial immunity.

“We would like to investigate this in younger people and in children, but that will have to wait until our other phase 3 studies are complete,” Dr. Mannick said.

The trial was sponsored by resTORbio.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mannick J et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A2623.

CORRECTION 5/24/2019 The article was corrected to state a decreased the incidence of RTIs caused by respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza 4, influenza B, metapneumovirus, or other coronavirus serotypes.

DALLAS – Nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, decreased by 44% the annual rate of lung function decline among patients with interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis, a year-long study has found.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In a placebo-controlled 52-week trial, forced vital capacity (FVC) in patients who took nintedanib (Ofev) declined by a mean of 52 mL – significantly less than the mean 93 mL decline seen among those who were given placebo, Oliver Distler, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society.

“These are people in their mid-40s and -50s,” said Dr. Distler of the University of Zürich. “They have a long time to go. If there is an annual preservation of lung function by 40%, if you have that every year, it becomes very surely clinically significant. A decline in FVC is also a good surrogate marker of mortality in interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis. Assuming the effects are ongoing above the 1 year we looked at, then indeed these results are clinically important.”

The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nintedanib is already approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. But some data suggest that it also exerts antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory effects in animal models of systemic sclerosis and inflammatory lung disease (ILD). SENSCIS (the Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis trial) investigated the molecule’s use in patients with ILD associated with systemic sclerosis.

Conducted in 32 countries, SENSCIS comprised 576 patients with the disorder, whose sclerosis affected at least 10% of their lungs. They were assigned to 52 weeks of either placebo or 150 mg nintedanib twice weekly. However, patients stayed on their blinded treatment until the last patient enrolled had finished the year of treatment; some patients took the drug for 100 weeks, Dr. Distler said. The primary endpoint was annual rate of decline in the forced vital capacity (FEV). Secondary endpoints included changes of the modified Rodnan skin score and in the total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

Patients were a mean of 54 years old, with a mean disease duration of about 3 years. About half had diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis; the sclerosis was limited in the remainder. The mean extent of lung fibrosis was about 36%. Half were taking mycophenolate at baseline, which was allowed as background treatment, along with up to 10 mg/day of prednisone. Any patient who experienced clinically significant lung function deterioration could receive additional therapy at the investigator’s discretion.

The mean baseline FEV for these patients was 72.5% of predicted value. The mean diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide was 53% of expected capacity.

Most patients completed the study (80% of the active group and 89% of the placebo group). The mean drug exposure duration was 10 months in the active group and 11 in the placebo group.

Improvement began early in treatment, with the efficacy curves separating by week 12 and continuing to diverge. After 52 weeks of therapy, the annual rate of change was 41 mL less in the active group than in the placebo group (–54.4 mL vs. –93.3 mL). The mean adjusted absolute change from baseline was –54.6 mL in the active group and –101 mL in the placebo at week 52. Significantly fewer patients taking nintedanib also lost more than 10% of FVC by week 52 (16.7% vs. 18%).

The St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score improved about one point in the active group and declined about one point in the placebo group.

Nintedanib was equally effective across a number of subgroups, including those divided by sex, age, and race. Antitopoisomerase antibodies and so-called antitopoisomerase I antibody status did not affect nintedanib’s action. Nintedanib also significantly improved scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire without Disability Index and dyspnea.

More patients in the active group than in on placebo discontinued treatment because of a serious adverse event (16% vs. 8.7%). The most common of these were diarrhea (75.7% vs. 31%), nausea (31.6% vs. 13.5%), and vomiting (24.7% vs.10.4%). Skin ulcers occurred in about 18% of each group. Patients in the active group were significantly more likely to develop elevated alanine and aspartate aminotransferase of up to three times normal levels (4.9% vs. 0.7%).

Treatment did not significantly affect mortality rates, however. Over the treatment period, 10 patients in the nintedanib group and 9 in the placebo group died (3.5% vs. 3.1%).

The study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Distler was the primary investigator on the trial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Distler O et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A7360.

DALLAS – Nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, decreased by 44% the annual rate of lung function decline among patients with interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis, a year-long study has found.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In a placebo-controlled 52-week trial, forced vital capacity (FVC) in patients who took nintedanib (Ofev) declined by a mean of 52 mL – significantly less than the mean 93 mL decline seen among those who were given placebo, Oliver Distler, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society.

“These are people in their mid-40s and -50s,” said Dr. Distler of the University of Zürich. “They have a long time to go. If there is an annual preservation of lung function by 40%, if you have that every year, it becomes very surely clinically significant. A decline in FVC is also a good surrogate marker of mortality in interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis. Assuming the effects are ongoing above the 1 year we looked at, then indeed these results are clinically important.”

The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nintedanib is already approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. But some data suggest that it also exerts antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory effects in animal models of systemic sclerosis and inflammatory lung disease (ILD). SENSCIS (the Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis trial) investigated the molecule’s use in patients with ILD associated with systemic sclerosis.

Conducted in 32 countries, SENSCIS comprised 576 patients with the disorder, whose sclerosis affected at least 10% of their lungs. They were assigned to 52 weeks of either placebo or 150 mg nintedanib twice weekly. However, patients stayed on their blinded treatment until the last patient enrolled had finished the year of treatment; some patients took the drug for 100 weeks, Dr. Distler said. The primary endpoint was annual rate of decline in the forced vital capacity (FEV). Secondary endpoints included changes of the modified Rodnan skin score and in the total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

Patients were a mean of 54 years old, with a mean disease duration of about 3 years. About half had diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis; the sclerosis was limited in the remainder. The mean extent of lung fibrosis was about 36%. Half were taking mycophenolate at baseline, which was allowed as background treatment, along with up to 10 mg/day of prednisone. Any patient who experienced clinically significant lung function deterioration could receive additional therapy at the investigator’s discretion.

The mean baseline FEV for these patients was 72.5% of predicted value. The mean diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide was 53% of expected capacity.

Most patients completed the study (80% of the active group and 89% of the placebo group). The mean drug exposure duration was 10 months in the active group and 11 in the placebo group.

Improvement began early in treatment, with the efficacy curves separating by week 12 and continuing to diverge. After 52 weeks of therapy, the annual rate of change was 41 mL less in the active group than in the placebo group (–54.4 mL vs. –93.3 mL). The mean adjusted absolute change from baseline was –54.6 mL in the active group and –101 mL in the placebo at week 52. Significantly fewer patients taking nintedanib also lost more than 10% of FVC by week 52 (16.7% vs. 18%).

The St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score improved about one point in the active group and declined about one point in the placebo group.

Nintedanib was equally effective across a number of subgroups, including those divided by sex, age, and race. Antitopoisomerase antibodies and so-called antitopoisomerase I antibody status did not affect nintedanib’s action. Nintedanib also significantly improved scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire without Disability Index and dyspnea.

More patients in the active group than in on placebo discontinued treatment because of a serious adverse event (16% vs. 8.7%). The most common of these were diarrhea (75.7% vs. 31%), nausea (31.6% vs. 13.5%), and vomiting (24.7% vs.10.4%). Skin ulcers occurred in about 18% of each group. Patients in the active group were significantly more likely to develop elevated alanine and aspartate aminotransferase of up to three times normal levels (4.9% vs. 0.7%).

Treatment did not significantly affect mortality rates, however. Over the treatment period, 10 patients in the nintedanib group and 9 in the placebo group died (3.5% vs. 3.1%).

The study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Distler was the primary investigator on the trial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Distler O et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A7360.

DALLAS – Nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, decreased by 44% the annual rate of lung function decline among patients with interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis, a year-long study has found.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

In a placebo-controlled 52-week trial, forced vital capacity (FVC) in patients who took nintedanib (Ofev) declined by a mean of 52 mL – significantly less than the mean 93 mL decline seen among those who were given placebo, Oliver Distler, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society.

“These are people in their mid-40s and -50s,” said Dr. Distler of the University of Zürich. “They have a long time to go. If there is an annual preservation of lung function by 40%, if you have that every year, it becomes very surely clinically significant. A decline in FVC is also a good surrogate marker of mortality in interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis. Assuming the effects are ongoing above the 1 year we looked at, then indeed these results are clinically important.”

The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nintedanib is already approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. But some data suggest that it also exerts antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory effects in animal models of systemic sclerosis and inflammatory lung disease (ILD). SENSCIS (the Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis trial) investigated the molecule’s use in patients with ILD associated with systemic sclerosis.

Conducted in 32 countries, SENSCIS comprised 576 patients with the disorder, whose sclerosis affected at least 10% of their lungs. They were assigned to 52 weeks of either placebo or 150 mg nintedanib twice weekly. However, patients stayed on their blinded treatment until the last patient enrolled had finished the year of treatment; some patients took the drug for 100 weeks, Dr. Distler said. The primary endpoint was annual rate of decline in the forced vital capacity (FEV). Secondary endpoints included changes of the modified Rodnan skin score and in the total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

Patients were a mean of 54 years old, with a mean disease duration of about 3 years. About half had diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis; the sclerosis was limited in the remainder. The mean extent of lung fibrosis was about 36%. Half were taking mycophenolate at baseline, which was allowed as background treatment, along with up to 10 mg/day of prednisone. Any patient who experienced clinically significant lung function deterioration could receive additional therapy at the investigator’s discretion.

The mean baseline FEV for these patients was 72.5% of predicted value. The mean diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide was 53% of expected capacity.

Most patients completed the study (80% of the active group and 89% of the placebo group). The mean drug exposure duration was 10 months in the active group and 11 in the placebo group.

Improvement began early in treatment, with the efficacy curves separating by week 12 and continuing to diverge. After 52 weeks of therapy, the annual rate of change was 41 mL less in the active group than in the placebo group (–54.4 mL vs. –93.3 mL). The mean adjusted absolute change from baseline was –54.6 mL in the active group and –101 mL in the placebo at week 52. Significantly fewer patients taking nintedanib also lost more than 10% of FVC by week 52 (16.7% vs. 18%).

The St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score improved about one point in the active group and declined about one point in the placebo group.

Nintedanib was equally effective across a number of subgroups, including those divided by sex, age, and race. Antitopoisomerase antibodies and so-called antitopoisomerase I antibody status did not affect nintedanib’s action. Nintedanib also significantly improved scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire without Disability Index and dyspnea.

More patients in the active group than in on placebo discontinued treatment because of a serious adverse event (16% vs. 8.7%). The most common of these were diarrhea (75.7% vs. 31%), nausea (31.6% vs. 13.5%), and vomiting (24.7% vs.10.4%). Skin ulcers occurred in about 18% of each group. Patients in the active group were significantly more likely to develop elevated alanine and aspartate aminotransferase of up to three times normal levels (4.9% vs. 0.7%).

Treatment did not significantly affect mortality rates, however. Over the treatment period, 10 patients in the nintedanib group and 9 in the placebo group died (3.5% vs. 3.1%).

The study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Distler was the primary investigator on the trial.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Distler O et al. ATS 2019, Abstract A7360.

Patients with mild asthma who rely solely on short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) to control their asthma symptoms remain at increased risk of exacerbations, according to investigators.

Two recent studies presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference demonstrated the benefits of glucocorticoid therapy among patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma while highlighting differential responses to steroids among patients with high versus low levels of eosinophils in sputum. Both studies were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The first study, SIENA, led by Stephen C. Lazarus, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues, involved 295 patients with mild, persistent asthma. Patients were classified as having either a high or low level of eosinophils in sputum, with a low level defined by two sputum samples consisting of less than 2% eosinophils. After a single-blind placebo run-in period of 6 weeks, patients were randomized to receive either mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]), or placebo for 12 weeks each, with subsequent crossover through the two remaining treatments. The primary outcome was the response to each active agent, compared with placebo among low-eosinophil patients who had a differential response to a trial agent.

Out of 295 patients, 221 (75%) had low eosinophils and 74 (25%) had high eosinophils. In the low-eosinophil subgroup, 59% of patients had a differential response to a trial agent; among these, 57% responded better to mometasone, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo, and 60% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 40% who responded better to placebo.

Turning to secondary analyses, among patients with high eosinophil levels who had a differential response, 74% responded better to mometasone, compared with 26% who responded better to placebo, and 57% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo.

In an additional exploratory analysis, adults with low eosinophil levels had better responses to tiotropium than placebo (62% vs 38%).

The researchers stated that a key finding of the study is that three-quarters of the mild, persistent asthma population had low eosinophil levels, far fewer than expected and that the difference in their response to mometasone compared to tiotropium was not significant.

“Our results raise the question of whether treatment guidelines should be reevaluated for patients with mild, persistent asthma for whom evidence of type 2 inflammation is lacking,” the investigators wrote. “The need for a change in treatment strategy is further highlighted by a growing body of literature suggesting that mild, persistent asthma can be managed safely without the daily use of inhaled glucocorticoids and by data showing that patients with a low eosinophil level may not have a favorable response to inhaled glucocorticoids” (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917).

The second study, Novel START, conducted by lead author Richard Beasley, DSc, of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, and colleagues, compared the efficacy of two inhaled glucocorticoid regimens and albuterol alone for patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma, measured by annualized exacerbation rate.

Initial randomization involved 675 patients, of whom 668 were included in the final analysis. Patients were randomized into three groups: albuterol as needed (100 mcg, two inhalations as needed for asthma symptoms), budesonide maintenance (200 mcg, one inhalation twice daily with as-needed albuterol), or budesonide/formoterol (budesonide 200 mcg and formoterol 6 mcg, one inhalation as needed). Along with annualized exacerbation rate, several secondary outcomes assessed symptoms, respiratory function, and number of severe exacerbations.

Data analysis showed that patients in the budesonide groups had similar rates of annualized exacerbation, both of which were significantly better than the exacerbation rate in the albuterol-only group; the absolute rate of exacerbations per patient per year was 0.175, 0.195, and 0.400 for budesonide maintenance, budesonide/formoterol, and albuterol only, respectively. Similarly, the median fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was lower in the budesonide groups than in the albuterol-only group. Patients in the budesonide/formoterol group had a 56% lower relative risk of severe pulmonary exacerbation than patients in the budesonide maintenance group and a 60% lower relative risk than the albuterol group. However, maintenance budesonide provided better symptom relief than budesonide/formoterol, “which suggests that for the patient for whom asthma symptoms rather than exacerbations are the most bothersome, maintenance treatment has value,” the investigators wrote (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963).

“The findings of our trial are consistent with evidence regarding the treatment of moderate and severe asthma – that maintenance and reliever therapy” with inhaled glucocorticoid/formoterol “results in a lower risk of severe exacerbations than maintenance therapy with an inhaled glucocorticoid–[long-acting beta agonist] and as-needed SABA,” the investigators concluded.

SIENA was funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with medications provided by Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Teva; the investigators reported relationships with Sanofi, Vectura, Circassia, DBV Technologies, and others. Novel START was funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; the investigators reported relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Theravance Biopharma, and others.

SOURCES: Beasley et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963; Lazarus et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917.

Patients with mild asthma who rely solely on short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) to control their asthma symptoms remain at increased risk of exacerbations, according to investigators.

Two recent studies presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference demonstrated the benefits of glucocorticoid therapy among patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma while highlighting differential responses to steroids among patients with high versus low levels of eosinophils in sputum. Both studies were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The first study, SIENA, led by Stephen C. Lazarus, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues, involved 295 patients with mild, persistent asthma. Patients were classified as having either a high or low level of eosinophils in sputum, with a low level defined by two sputum samples consisting of less than 2% eosinophils. After a single-blind placebo run-in period of 6 weeks, patients were randomized to receive either mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]), or placebo for 12 weeks each, with subsequent crossover through the two remaining treatments. The primary outcome was the response to each active agent, compared with placebo among low-eosinophil patients who had a differential response to a trial agent.

Out of 295 patients, 221 (75%) had low eosinophils and 74 (25%) had high eosinophils. In the low-eosinophil subgroup, 59% of patients had a differential response to a trial agent; among these, 57% responded better to mometasone, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo, and 60% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 40% who responded better to placebo.

Turning to secondary analyses, among patients with high eosinophil levels who had a differential response, 74% responded better to mometasone, compared with 26% who responded better to placebo, and 57% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo.

In an additional exploratory analysis, adults with low eosinophil levels had better responses to tiotropium than placebo (62% vs 38%).

The researchers stated that a key finding of the study is that three-quarters of the mild, persistent asthma population had low eosinophil levels, far fewer than expected and that the difference in their response to mometasone compared to tiotropium was not significant.

“Our results raise the question of whether treatment guidelines should be reevaluated for patients with mild, persistent asthma for whom evidence of type 2 inflammation is lacking,” the investigators wrote. “The need for a change in treatment strategy is further highlighted by a growing body of literature suggesting that mild, persistent asthma can be managed safely without the daily use of inhaled glucocorticoids and by data showing that patients with a low eosinophil level may not have a favorable response to inhaled glucocorticoids” (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917).

The second study, Novel START, conducted by lead author Richard Beasley, DSc, of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, and colleagues, compared the efficacy of two inhaled glucocorticoid regimens and albuterol alone for patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma, measured by annualized exacerbation rate.

Initial randomization involved 675 patients, of whom 668 were included in the final analysis. Patients were randomized into three groups: albuterol as needed (100 mcg, two inhalations as needed for asthma symptoms), budesonide maintenance (200 mcg, one inhalation twice daily with as-needed albuterol), or budesonide/formoterol (budesonide 200 mcg and formoterol 6 mcg, one inhalation as needed). Along with annualized exacerbation rate, several secondary outcomes assessed symptoms, respiratory function, and number of severe exacerbations.

Data analysis showed that patients in the budesonide groups had similar rates of annualized exacerbation, both of which were significantly better than the exacerbation rate in the albuterol-only group; the absolute rate of exacerbations per patient per year was 0.175, 0.195, and 0.400 for budesonide maintenance, budesonide/formoterol, and albuterol only, respectively. Similarly, the median fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was lower in the budesonide groups than in the albuterol-only group. Patients in the budesonide/formoterol group had a 56% lower relative risk of severe pulmonary exacerbation than patients in the budesonide maintenance group and a 60% lower relative risk than the albuterol group. However, maintenance budesonide provided better symptom relief than budesonide/formoterol, “which suggests that for the patient for whom asthma symptoms rather than exacerbations are the most bothersome, maintenance treatment has value,” the investigators wrote (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963).

“The findings of our trial are consistent with evidence regarding the treatment of moderate and severe asthma – that maintenance and reliever therapy” with inhaled glucocorticoid/formoterol “results in a lower risk of severe exacerbations than maintenance therapy with an inhaled glucocorticoid–[long-acting beta agonist] and as-needed SABA,” the investigators concluded.

SIENA was funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with medications provided by Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Teva; the investigators reported relationships with Sanofi, Vectura, Circassia, DBV Technologies, and others. Novel START was funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; the investigators reported relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Theravance Biopharma, and others.

SOURCES: Beasley et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963; Lazarus et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917.

Patients with mild asthma who rely solely on short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) to control their asthma symptoms remain at increased risk of exacerbations, according to investigators.

Two recent studies presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference demonstrated the benefits of glucocorticoid therapy among patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma while highlighting differential responses to steroids among patients with high versus low levels of eosinophils in sputum. Both studies were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The first study, SIENA, led by Stephen C. Lazarus, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues, involved 295 patients with mild, persistent asthma. Patients were classified as having either a high or low level of eosinophils in sputum, with a low level defined by two sputum samples consisting of less than 2% eosinophils. After a single-blind placebo run-in period of 6 weeks, patients were randomized to receive either mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]), or placebo for 12 weeks each, with subsequent crossover through the two remaining treatments. The primary outcome was the response to each active agent, compared with placebo among low-eosinophil patients who had a differential response to a trial agent.

Out of 295 patients, 221 (75%) had low eosinophils and 74 (25%) had high eosinophils. In the low-eosinophil subgroup, 59% of patients had a differential response to a trial agent; among these, 57% responded better to mometasone, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo, and 60% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 40% who responded better to placebo.

Turning to secondary analyses, among patients with high eosinophil levels who had a differential response, 74% responded better to mometasone, compared with 26% who responded better to placebo, and 57% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo.

In an additional exploratory analysis, adults with low eosinophil levels had better responses to tiotropium than placebo (62% vs 38%).

The researchers stated that a key finding of the study is that three-quarters of the mild, persistent asthma population had low eosinophil levels, far fewer than expected and that the difference in their response to mometasone compared to tiotropium was not significant.

“Our results raise the question of whether treatment guidelines should be reevaluated for patients with mild, persistent asthma for whom evidence of type 2 inflammation is lacking,” the investigators wrote. “The need for a change in treatment strategy is further highlighted by a growing body of literature suggesting that mild, persistent asthma can be managed safely without the daily use of inhaled glucocorticoids and by data showing that patients with a low eosinophil level may not have a favorable response to inhaled glucocorticoids” (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917).

The second study, Novel START, conducted by lead author Richard Beasley, DSc, of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, and colleagues, compared the efficacy of two inhaled glucocorticoid regimens and albuterol alone for patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma, measured by annualized exacerbation rate.

Initial randomization involved 675 patients, of whom 668 were included in the final analysis. Patients were randomized into three groups: albuterol as needed (100 mcg, two inhalations as needed for asthma symptoms), budesonide maintenance (200 mcg, one inhalation twice daily with as-needed albuterol), or budesonide/formoterol (budesonide 200 mcg and formoterol 6 mcg, one inhalation as needed). Along with annualized exacerbation rate, several secondary outcomes assessed symptoms, respiratory function, and number of severe exacerbations.

Data analysis showed that patients in the budesonide groups had similar rates of annualized exacerbation, both of which were significantly better than the exacerbation rate in the albuterol-only group; the absolute rate of exacerbations per patient per year was 0.175, 0.195, and 0.400 for budesonide maintenance, budesonide/formoterol, and albuterol only, respectively. Similarly, the median fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was lower in the budesonide groups than in the albuterol-only group. Patients in the budesonide/formoterol group had a 56% lower relative risk of severe pulmonary exacerbation than patients in the budesonide maintenance group and a 60% lower relative risk than the albuterol group. However, maintenance budesonide provided better symptom relief than budesonide/formoterol, “which suggests that for the patient for whom asthma symptoms rather than exacerbations are the most bothersome, maintenance treatment has value,” the investigators wrote (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963).

“The findings of our trial are consistent with evidence regarding the treatment of moderate and severe asthma – that maintenance and reliever therapy” with inhaled glucocorticoid/formoterol “results in a lower risk of severe exacerbations than maintenance therapy with an inhaled glucocorticoid–[long-acting beta agonist] and as-needed SABA,” the investigators concluded.

SIENA was funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with medications provided by Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Teva; the investigators reported relationships with Sanofi, Vectura, Circassia, DBV Technologies, and others. Novel START was funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; the investigators reported relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Theravance Biopharma, and others.

SOURCES: Beasley et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963; Lazarus et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917.