Pulmonary Therapy最新文献

Introduction: This post hoc analysis assessed the ability of tezepelumab treatment to restore normal lung function in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with abnormal lung function at baseline pooled from the PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR studies.

Methods: PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR were multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients (12-80 years old) included in this analysis received tezepelumab 210 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks or matched placebo for 52 weeks. Patients had a percent predicted pre-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) of < 80% (< 90% for adolescents in NAVIGATOR) at screening. The change from baseline to week 52 in pre-BD FEV₁ was assessed by baseline percent predicted pre-BD FEV₁ subgroup [abnormal (< 80%) and normal (≥ 80%)]. The proportion of patients with abnormal lung function at baseline who achieved normal lung function at week 52 was assessed overall and by biomarker level and disease duration subgroups.

Results: Of the 665 and 669 patients who received tezepelumab or placebo, respectively, 564 and 569 had abnormal lung function at baseline. Tezepelumab improved the pre-BD FEV₁ from baseline to week 52 versus placebo by 0.14 L [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.19] and 0.13 L (95% CI 0.01-0.24) in patients with abnormal and normal lung function at baseline, respectively. A higher proportion of tezepelumab than placebo recipients with abnormal lung function at baseline achieved normal lung function at week 52 (17.2% vs. 9.9%, respectively). Among tezepelumab recipients, those with higher levels of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers and a shorter duration of disease at baseline were more likely to achieve normal lung function at week 52.

Conclusion: In patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma, a greater proportion of tezepelumab than placebo recipients with abnormal lung function at baseline achieved normal lung function at week 52.

Trial registration: PATHWAY: NCT02054130; NAVIGATOR: NCT03347279.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) represents a clinical and therapeutic challenge characterized by progressive fibrosis and destruction of the lung architecture. The pathogenesis of IPF has been long debated; while it is generally believed that repeated lung injury and abnormal wound repair are the main pathogenetic mechanisms, clear understanding of disease development and efficacious treatment remain important unmet needs. Indeed, current standard of care (i.e., the antifibrotic drugs pirfenidone and nintedanib) can slow down lung function decline and disease progression without halting the disease. In the last 2 decades, several clinical trials in IPF have been completed mostly with negative results. Yet, unprecedented numbers of clinical trials of pharmacological interventions are currently being conducted. In this review, we summarize and critically discuss the current and future treatment landscape of IPF, with emphasis on the most promising developmental molecules.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common and complex disease characterized by persistent airflow limitation and the presence of exacerbations, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Although the pathogenesis of COPD is multifactorial, airway inflammation plays a significant role in disease progression. Despite the advantages of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical interventions that have significantly improved the symptom burden and exacerbation frequency in COPD, there is a lack of disease-modifying therapies that target the underlying disease mechanisms. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), a drug class that has improved treatment in severe asthma by blocking mediators of the type 2 (Th2) and allergic inflammatory cascades, are currently under investigation for their efficacy in COPD. Our review summarizes the evidence for the use of monoclonal antibodies in COPD and discusses current limitations and promising advances. Although targeting Th1 inflammation has failed to improve COPD outcomes, recent clinical trials have shown beneficial effects of monoclonal antibodies targeting Th2 inflammation, providing evidence for a personalized approach in COPD treatment.

Introduction: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a rare and severe disorder that significantly affects patients' lives. However, a comprehensive picture of the diagnosis and treatment of this condition in Japan remains unclear. This study aimed to elucidate these aspects by conducting a nationwide survey targeting patients with PH and treating physicians.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 160 patients with PH (119 with pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH] and 41 with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension [CTEPH]), of whom 121 were female (75.6%), and 211 physicians across Japan. The questionnaires assessed patients' diagnostic journey, employment status, communication with physicians regarding treatment goals, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and medication adherence.

Results: Patients visited a mean of 2.3 medical facilities before receiving a PH diagnosis (PAH patients: 2.2 visits; CTEPH patients: 2.3 visits), with a mean time from symptom onset to diagnosis of 18.0 months (PAH: 20.2 months; CTEPH: 12.2 months). Employment and school attendance rates declined from 68.8% before diagnosis to 44.4% immediately after diagnosis, and further to 36.9% at the time of the survey. Discrepancies in communication about treatment goals were observed between patients and physicians, particularly in patients with CTEPH (82.9% of patients reported such discussions vs. 41.2% of treating physicians). Median HRQoL scores, as assessed by the emPHasis-10 questionnaire, indicated impairment (PAH: 21.5; CTEPH: 18.0), which worsened with increasing disease severity.

Conclusion: This nationwide study provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges faced by patients with PH in Japan. The findings suggest the essential need for earlier diagnosis, support for employment and education among patients, and improved patient-physician communication to reduce the burden of PH and enhance patient outcomes. Graphical abstract avaliable for this article.

Introduction: Human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections can result in hospitalization and/or death among vulnerable populations. Molnupiravir is a prodrug of ß-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, which has broad-spectrum preclinical activity against RNA viruses. We conducted a pilot trial evaluating molnupiravir for RSV infection.

Methods: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a human challenge study in healthy adults (≥ 18 to ≤ 55 years old). Eligible participants were randomized 1:1:1 to molnupiravir prophylaxis (5 days, 800 mg twice daily; followed by placebo), molnupiravir treatment (5 days, 800 mg twice daily; started on day 5, unless triggered earlier by positive PCR test; preceded and followed by placebo), or placebo. Study intervention was administered for 11 days, from day -1 (evening), prior to inoculation with RSV on day 0 (morning). For 10 days, quarantined participants reported symptoms thrice daily and underwent nasal wash sample collection twice daily. Primary efficacy endpoints (assessed by quantitative viral culture on plaque assay) were peak viral load (PVL) in all participants (for prophylaxis) and area under the viral-load time curve (VL-AUC) in participants with confirmed infection (for treatment). Adverse events were assessed from day 0 to day 28.

Results: Forty participants each were randomized to prophylaxis and placebo and 36 to treatment. Molnupiravir was not statistically significant from placebo in either primary endpoint: with prophylaxis, the difference in mean log₁₀ PVL was - 0.29 plaque-forming units (PFU)/ml (90% CI - 1.16, 0.58; p = 0.578), and with treatment, the difference in mean log₁₀ VL-AUC was - 2.69 day*PFU/ml (90% CI - 6.17, 0.79; p = 0.201). Molnupiravir treatment resulted in significantly faster symptom resolution: 6.0 days versus 8.5 days with placebo (hazard ratio: 2.24 [95% CI: 0.99, 5.07]; p = 0.0459). Adverse event rates were comparable between arms.

Conclusions: Although the primary endpoints were not met, modest, non-significant benefits with molnupiravir treatment were seen across virologic endpoints, along with significantly faster symptom resolution.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05559905.

Introduction: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) addition to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) dual therapy is recommended for severe asthma, but its real-world effectiveness is not well established.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to investigate clinical outcomes in US adults with asthma receiving ICS + LABA + LAMA as multiple-/single-inhaler triple therapy (MITT/SITT). Real-world/observational studies published in English in Embase/MEDLINE databases (2014-2024) and conference abstracts presented 2022-2024 were eligible for inclusion.

Results: From 588 identified records, only 8 articles reporting 6 unique studies were included; 2 assessed SITT and 4 assessed MITT, and 4 treatments were investigated. Exacerbation rates reported in two studies were significantly reduced with tiotropium (TIO) + ICS + LABA MITT versus high-dose ICS + LABA within 6 (64% lower) and 12 months (73%), and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg SITT versus pre-treatment after 12 months (41%). Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use was reported in two studies. The proportion of patients with ≥ 1 rescue OCS dispensing decreased with TIO 1.25 mcg + ICS + LABA MITT, with greatest reductions for MITT ± leukotriene receptor antagonist (pre-treatment: 68.4%, post treatment: 54.2%). Mean number of OCS dispensings/patient/year significantly decreased (29%, p < 0.001) following FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg SITT initiation. Treatment adherence/persistence was reported in three studies. Mean (standard deviation) proportion of days covered was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for FF/UMEC/VI SITT versus MITT after 6 (0.56 [0.31] versus 0.46 [0.31]) and 12 months (0.46 [0.33] versus 0.35 [0.30]). Persistence at 12 months was 25.9% and 12.0%, respectively. Lung function, clinical remission, quality of life, and safety outcomes were not reported in any study.

Conclusions: This brief communication reports a systematic review that identified few sources of SITT or MITT in US patients with asthma. Although inclusion of observational studies can result in reporting/selection bias, we identified greater clinical benefits with triple therapies versus dual therapies.

The latest advances in asthma treatment have highlighted the significance of eosinophilia and the possible role of some pro-eosinophilic mediators, like interleukins (IL) IL-5, IL-4/IL-13, and IL-33 in the disease's pathogenesis. Considering that a subgroup of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may have blood eosinophilia akin to that seen in asthma, numerous studies in the last decade have suggested that eosinophilic COPD is a separate entity. While the exact role of blood eosinophils in the pathophysiology of COPD remains unclear, eosinophilia seems to increase the effectiveness of corticosteroid therapy. Currently, monoclonal antibodies targeting the interleukins (IL-5, IL-4, IL-13, and IL-33) or their receptors are being investigated in patients with COPD belonging in T2-high endotype. This review focuses on the mechanisms of eosinophilia in COPD, the effects of eosinophilia on disease outcome, and examines the most recent data on the use of peripheral blood eosinophilia in treating patients with COPD. Finally, we emphasize the current implication of monoclonal antibodies in COPD in the context of eosinophilic airway inflammation.

Introduction: The MERIT study in Malaysia is a real-world retrospective, observational, multicenter study that evaluated asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma who were switched from as-needed (pro re nata [PRN]) budesonide/formoterol or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) whenever a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) was taken, to proactive regular dosing of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL PRD).

Methods: Data from the medical records of patients who were stepped up to FP/SAL PRD were extracted retrospectively at baseline and follow-up (between 3 and 6 months after stepping up to FP/SAL PRD). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with improvement in asthma control assessed via the Asthma Control Test (ACT). Secondary endpoints included safety and the percentage of patients with moderate and severe exacerbations. Additionally, patient-reported use of reliever medication, systemic corticosteroids, emergency department visits, or hospitalization was also analyzed.

Results: One hundred twenty patients with uncontrolled asthma who were stepped up to FP/SAL PRD were enrolled in the study. Of these, 76 (63.3%) patients were on prior budesonide/formoterol PRN, and 44 (36.7%) were on prior ICS with SABA PRN treatment. After stepping up to FP/SAL PRD with a mean follow-up of 5.8 months, 110 (91.7%) patients achieved asthma control at the follow-up visit (p < 0.001). Similar improvements were observed regardless of prior PRN regimen. A statistically significant improvement was observed in the mean ACT score at the follow-up visit (p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients with moderate and severe exacerbations was also reduced after stepping up to FP/SAL PRD, with no adverse events reported. Over 80% of patients reported a decrease in the use of systemic corticosteroids, visits to the emergency department, or hospitalization.

Conclusion: This study highlights the effectiveness of the FP/SAL PRD treatment approach in patients with uncontrolled asthma on a PRN treatment regimen.

Introduction: Escalation to single- or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; MITT) is a recommended option for patients with asthma who remain uncontrolled by medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist; however, characterization of elderly users of triple therapy is limited. This real-world cohort study describes demographics and clinical characteristics of elderly patients with asthma with and without comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are new users of triple therapy, and asthma treatment patterns preceding triple therapy initiation.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database. Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years of age with asthma or with asthma and comorbid COPD who initiated either triple therapy with single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI; 100/62.5/25 μg) or MITT between September 18, 2017 and September 30, 2020. Demographics, clinical characteristics, healthcare resource utilization, healthcare costs, and asthma treatment patterns were described in the 12-month period before triple therapy initiation (baseline period).

Results: In total, 15,557 patients were included. Among FF/UMEC/VI initiators with asthma (N = 635) mean age was 73.3 years and 66.6% were female. During the baseline period, > 75% of patients used controller therapy, > 92% used rescue medications, 27.9% experienced ≥ 1 asthma-related exacerbation, with mean annual exacerbation rate of 0.42, and mean all-cause healthcare costs were $23,407. Patients with asthma initiating MITT and patients with asthma and comorbid COPD initiating FF/UMEC/VI or MITT had similar characteristics, healthcare resource utilization, healthcare costs, and asthma treatment patterns to FF/UMEC/VI initiators with asthma.

Conclusions: Triple therapy is often initiated following use of other asthma controller medications in real-world practice. Substantial rescue medication use and high disease and economic burden among this elderly patient population suggest that their asthma was not adequately controlled prior to triple therapy initiation. This retrospective study provides an early profile of elderly patients with asthma in the USA.

Introduction: Evidence for use of pulmonary arterial hypertension targeted-therapies in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is limited. In MERIT-1, the endothelin receptor antagonist macitentan improved hemodynamic and functional parameters versus placebo in patients with inoperable CTEPH over a 24-week double-blind (DB) period. Its open-label (OL) extension study (MERIT-2) provides long-term safety/efficacy data.

Methods: MERIT-2 (NCT02060721) was a multicenter, single-arm, OL, phase 2 extension study of MERIT-1. Patients completing MERIT-1 were eligible to receive 10 mg macitentan once-daily in MERIT-2. Safety and efficacy (6-min walk distance [6MWD] and change in World Health Organization functional class [WHO FC]) were assessed in all patients in MERIT-2 regardless of treatment received in DB (All patients MERIT-2 OL macitentan 10 mg group) and the subgroup of patients receiving DB macitentan in MERIT-1 (Long-term [DB/OL] macitentan 10 mg subgroup).

Results: Of the 80 patients randomized in MERIT-1, 76 entered MERIT-2 (All patients MERIT-2 OL macitentan 10 mg group): 40 who received DB macitentan (DB-macitentan patients) and 36 DB placebo (DB-placebo patients). Median (interquartile range) macitentan exposure in the All patients MERIT-2 OL macitentan 10 mg group was 45.5 (26.0, 66.1) months. During the OL period, treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) were reported in 72 (94.7%) patients; most frequent were worsening of pulmonary hypertension (19.7%), decreased hemoglobin (18.4%) and upper respiratory tract infection (15.8%). Fourteen (18.4%) patients died; none were assessed as macitentan-related. At Month 6 post-OL baseline, mean (standard deviation) change in 6MWD was - 0.4 m (43.62) for DB-macitentan patients and 10.7 m (45.63) for DB-placebo patients; the majority had unchanged (83.3%) or improved (12.5%) WHO FC. Safety/efficacy analyses were consistent in the Long-term (DB/OL) macitentan 10 mg subgroup.

Conclusion: These analyses provide long-term safety/efficacy data in patients with inoperable CTEPH treated with macitentan. No unexpected safety findings occurred; reported AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of macitentan. At 6 months post-OL baseline, DB-placebo patients modestly improved 6MWD; DB-macitentan patients maintained improvements observed in MERIT-1. WHO FC was largely unchanged.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02021292; NCT02060721.