Randomized trial finds lebrikizumab fails to significantly improve lung function in mild-to-moderate asthma, indicating that targeting interleukin-13 alone is insufficient.
Background Asthma is a heterogeneous and complex disease in both its clinical course and response to treatment. IL-13 is central to Type 2 inflammation and contributes to many features of asthma. In a previous Phase 2 study, lebrikizumab, an anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibody, did not significantly improve FEV 1 in mild-to-moderate asthma patients not receiving ICS therapy. This Phase 3 study was designed to further assess the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma treated with daily short-acting β 2 -agonist therapy alone. Methods Adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma were randomised to receive lebrikizumab 125 mg subcutaneously (SC), placebo SC, or montelukast 10 mg orally for 12 weeks, with an 8-week follow-up period. The primary efficacy endpoint was absolute change in pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 from baseline at Week 12. Findings A total of 310 patients were randomised and dosed in the study. The mean absolute change in FEV 1 from baseline at Week 12 was higher in the lebrikizumab-treated arm compared with placebo (150 mL versus 67 mL); however, this improvement did not achieve statistical significance (overall adjusted difference of 83 mL [95% CI: −3, 170]; p = .06). Montelukast did not improve FEV 1 as compared with placebo. Lebrikizumab was generally safe and well tolerated during the study. Interpretation Lebrikizumab did not significantly improve FEV 1 in mild-to-moderate asthma patients at a dose expected to inhibit the IL-13 pathway. Inhibiting IL-13 in this patient population was not sufficient to improve lung function. These data support the findings of a previous trial of lebrikizumab in patients not receiving ICS. Clinical Trials Registry number This trial was registered under NCT02104674 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Korenblat et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: