Composite type-2 biomarker strategy versus a symptom-risk-based algorithm to adjust corticosteroid dose in patients with severe asthma: a multicentre, single-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.
Acute Disease
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
/ administration & dosage
Algorithms
Anti-Asthmatic Agents
/ administration & dosage
Asthma
/ drug therapy
Biomarkers
/ blood
Cell Adhesion Molecules
/ blood
Drug Dosage Calculations
Eosinophils
Female
Humans
Leukocyte Count
Male
Middle Aged
Nitric Oxide
/ metabolism
Risk Factors
Single-Blind Method
Journal
The Lancet. Respiratory medicine
ISSN: 2213-2619
Titre abrégé: Lancet Respir Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101605555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
04
08
2020
revised:
20
08
2020
accepted:
20
08
2020
pubmed:
12
9
2020
medline:
22
1
2021
entrez:
11
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Asthma treatment guidelines recommend increasing corticosteroid dose to control symptoms and reduce exacerbations. This approach is potentially flawed because symptomatic asthma can occur without corticosteroid responsive type-2 (T2)-driven eosinophilic inflammation, and inappropriately high-dose corticosteroid treatment might have little therapeutic benefit with increased risk of side-effects. We compared a biomarker strategy to adjust corticosteroid dose using a composite score of T2 biomarkers (fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FENO], blood eosinophils, and serum periostin) with a standardised symptom-risk-based algorithm (control). We did a single-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in adults (18-80 years of age) with severe asthma (at treatment steps 4 and 5 of the Global Initiative for Asthma) and FENO of less than 45 parts per billion at 12 specialist severe asthma centres across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to either the biomarker strategy group or the control group by an online electronic case-report form, in blocks of ten, stratified by asthma control and use of rescue systemic steroids in the previous year. Patients were masked to study group allocation throughout the entirety of the study. Patients attended clinic every 8 weeks, with treatment adjustment following automated treatment-group-specific algorithms: those in the biomarker strategy group received a default advisory to maintain treatment and those in the control group had their treatment adjusted according to the steps indicated by the trial algorithm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with corticosteroid dose reduction at week 48, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary outcomes were inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose at the end of the study; cumulative dose of ICS during the study; proportion of patients on maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS) at study end; rate of protocol-defined severe exacerbations per patient year; time to first severe exacerbation; number of hospital admissions for asthma; changes in lung function, Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 score, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and T2 biomarkers from baseline to week 48; and whether patients declined to progress to OCS. A secondary aim of our study was to establish the proportion of patients with severe asthma in whom T2 biomarkers remained low when corticosteroid therapy was decreased to a minimum ICS dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02717689 and has been completed. Patients were recruited from Jan 8, 2016, to July 12, 2018. Of 549 patients assessed, 301 patients were included in the ITT population and were randomly assigned to the biomarker strategy group (n=240) or to the control group (n=61). 28·4% of patients in the biomarker strategy group were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 compared with 18·5% of patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·71 [95% CI 0·80-3·63]; p=0·17). In the per-protocol (PP) population (n=121), a significantly greater proportion of patients were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 in the biomarker strategy group (30·7% of patients) compared with the control group (5·0% of patients; aOR 11·48 [95% CI 1·35-97·83]; p=0·026). Patient choice to not follow treatment advice was the principle reason for loss to PP analysis. There was no difference in secondary outcomes between study groups and no loss of asthma control among patients in the biomarker strategy group who reduced their corticosteroid dose. Biomarker-based corticosteroid adjustment did not result in a greater proportion of patients reducing corticosteroid dose versus control. Understanding the reasons for patients not following treatment advice in both treatment strategies is an important area for future research. The prevalence of T2 biomarker-low severe asthma was low. This study was funded, in part, by the Medical Research Council UK.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Asthma treatment guidelines recommend increasing corticosteroid dose to control symptoms and reduce exacerbations. This approach is potentially flawed because symptomatic asthma can occur without corticosteroid responsive type-2 (T2)-driven eosinophilic inflammation, and inappropriately high-dose corticosteroid treatment might have little therapeutic benefit with increased risk of side-effects. We compared a biomarker strategy to adjust corticosteroid dose using a composite score of T2 biomarkers (fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FENO], blood eosinophils, and serum periostin) with a standardised symptom-risk-based algorithm (control).
METHODS
We did a single-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in adults (18-80 years of age) with severe asthma (at treatment steps 4 and 5 of the Global Initiative for Asthma) and FENO of less than 45 parts per billion at 12 specialist severe asthma centres across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to either the biomarker strategy group or the control group by an online electronic case-report form, in blocks of ten, stratified by asthma control and use of rescue systemic steroids in the previous year. Patients were masked to study group allocation throughout the entirety of the study. Patients attended clinic every 8 weeks, with treatment adjustment following automated treatment-group-specific algorithms: those in the biomarker strategy group received a default advisory to maintain treatment and those in the control group had their treatment adjusted according to the steps indicated by the trial algorithm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with corticosteroid dose reduction at week 48, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary outcomes were inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose at the end of the study; cumulative dose of ICS during the study; proportion of patients on maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS) at study end; rate of protocol-defined severe exacerbations per patient year; time to first severe exacerbation; number of hospital admissions for asthma; changes in lung function, Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 score, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and T2 biomarkers from baseline to week 48; and whether patients declined to progress to OCS. A secondary aim of our study was to establish the proportion of patients with severe asthma in whom T2 biomarkers remained low when corticosteroid therapy was decreased to a minimum ICS dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02717689 and has been completed.
FINDINGS
Patients were recruited from Jan 8, 2016, to July 12, 2018. Of 549 patients assessed, 301 patients were included in the ITT population and were randomly assigned to the biomarker strategy group (n=240) or to the control group (n=61). 28·4% of patients in the biomarker strategy group were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 compared with 18·5% of patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·71 [95% CI 0·80-3·63]; p=0·17). In the per-protocol (PP) population (n=121), a significantly greater proportion of patients were on a lower corticosteroid dose at week 48 in the biomarker strategy group (30·7% of patients) compared with the control group (5·0% of patients; aOR 11·48 [95% CI 1·35-97·83]; p=0·026). Patient choice to not follow treatment advice was the principle reason for loss to PP analysis. There was no difference in secondary outcomes between study groups and no loss of asthma control among patients in the biomarker strategy group who reduced their corticosteroid dose.
INTERPRETATION
Biomarker-based corticosteroid adjustment did not result in a greater proportion of patients reducing corticosteroid dose versus control. Understanding the reasons for patients not following treatment advice in both treatment strategies is an important area for future research. The prevalence of T2 biomarker-low severe asthma was low.
FUNDING
This study was funded, in part, by the Medical Research Council UK.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32916135
pii: S2213-2600(20)30397-0
doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30397-0
pmc: PMC7783382
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
0
Anti-Asthmatic Agents
0
Biomarkers
0
Cell Adhesion Molecules
0
POSTN protein, human
0
Nitric Oxide
31C4KY9ESH
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02717689']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
57-68Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M016579/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
Ian M Adcock
(IM)
Adnam Azim
(A)
Mary Bellamy
(M)
Catherine Borg
(C)
Michelle Bourne
(M)
Clare Connolly
(C)
Richard W Costello
(RW)
Chris J Corrigan
(CJ)
Sarah Davies
(S)
Gareth Davies
(G)
Kian F Chung
(KF)
Gabrielle Gainsborough
(G)
Traceyanne Grandison
(T)
Beverley Hargadon
(B)
Avril Horn
(A)
Val Hudson
(V)
David Jackson
(D)
Sebastian Johnston
(S)
Geraldine Jones
(G)
Paula McCourt
(P)
Maria Nunez
(M)
Dominic E Shaw
(DE)
Katherine Smith
(K)
Joel Solis
(J)
Roisin Stone
(R)
Freda Yang
(F)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Allergy. 2020 Feb;75(2):302-310
pubmed: 31267562
Trials. 2018 Jan 4;19(1):5
pubmed: 29301585
Stat Med. 2011 Feb 20;30(4):377-99
pubmed: 21225900
Eur Respir J. 2006 Mar;27(3):483-94
pubmed: 16507847
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 May - Jun;6(3):776-781
pubmed: 29408385
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008 Aug 1;178(3):218-224
pubmed: 18480428
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Sep 1;180(5):388-95
pubmed: 19483109
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Mar 15;185(6):612-9
pubmed: 22268133
Lancet. 1999 Jun 26;353(9171):2213-4
pubmed: 10392993
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Feb 1;201(3):276-293
pubmed: 31525297
Thorax. 2019 Aug;74(8):806-809
pubmed: 30940770
Lancet. 2018 Jan 27;391(10118):350-400
pubmed: 28911920
Thorax. 2016 Feb;71(2):187-9
pubmed: 26205878
Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1715-21
pubmed: 12480423
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jul;8(7):671-680
pubmed: 32171064
Thorax. 2016 Apr;71(4):339-46
pubmed: 26819354
Thorax. 2012 Mar;67(3):199-208
pubmed: 20937641
Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):659-668
pubmed: 28687413
ERJ Open Res. 2018 Dec 7;4(4):
pubmed: 30538996