Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Precision medicine in COPD: review of mepolizumab for eosinophilic COPD

Gabriella Long, Jasmine Wall
Breathe 2018 14: 338-341; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.026318
Gabriella Long
1University of Manchester, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gabriella Long
  • For correspondence: gabriella.long@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk
Jasmine Wall
2Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Bolton, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jasmine Wall
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Mepolizumab can reduce exacerbation rates in those with frequently exacerbating, severe COPD and raised blood eosinophils; this represents a further advance in precision medicine for COPD and targeted therapies http://ow.ly/uklu30m4YcU

Commentary on:

Pavord ID, et al. Mepolizumab for eosinophilic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1613–1629.

Introduction

Precision medicine for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can improve management for those who may have otherwise exhausted conventional therapy. Approximately 40% of patients with COPD have a persistently elevated blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells·μL−1 [1]. Blood eosinophils are reflective of sputum eosinophil count, which is used as a marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation [2, 3]. Debatably, raised blood eosinophils identify a distinct COPD phenotype with increased frequency and severity of exacerbations [4–6]. Guiding corticosteroid treatment according to the level of blood eosinophils results in a reduction in exacerbations, which is indicative of its value as a biomarker of corticosteroid responsiveness [7–9]. However, the use of inhaled corticosteroids has been associated with increased risk of pneumonia [10, 11].

Previous studies have investigated the potential for targeted monoclonal antibody therapy for COPD. Brightling et al. [12] studied benralizumab, an interleukin (IL)-5 receptor antibody. IL-5 stimulates growth, maturation and release of eosinophils and precipitates their survival to allow ongoing inflammatory response. Post hoc analysis comparing the effects of benralizumab on a subgroup of patients with raised blood eosinophils found a significant improvement in lung function, but no effect on exacerbation rate [12].

Mepolizumab is a monoclonal antibody to IL-5. Mepolizumab has been well documented to reduce eosinophilic inflammation and exacerbations in severe asthmatic patients with raised blood and sputum eosinophils [13–15]. To this end, Pavord et al. [16] explored the impact of mepolizumab on frequently exacerbating COPD patients, on maximal triple inhaled therapy, with raised blood eosinophils. Here, we analyse the study and findings, and its impact on clinical practice.

Study design

The study by Pavord et al. [16] was constructed into two multicentre, phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials: mepolizumab versus placebo as add-on treatment for frequently exacerbating COPD patients (METREX), and mepolizumab versus placebo as add-on treatment for frequently exacerbating COPD patients characterised by eosinophil level (METREO). Table 1 summarises the key study characteristics and methods.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Key study characteristics and methods

Patients were aged ≥40 years with at least a 1-year diagnosis of COPD, taking maximal triple inhaled therapy, and who had a history of two or more moderate exacerbations (treated with systemic glucocorticoids, antibiotics or both) or one or more severe exacerbation (hospitalisation). Those with a history of asthma were excluded. Smoking status and pack-years were not part of the inclusion criteria. In METREX, patients were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneous injections of either mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo (0.9% saline), while in METREO patients were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either mepolizumab 100 mg, mepolizumab 300 mg or placebo (0.9% saline) every 4 weeks for 52 weeks.

METREX patients were stratified by blood eosinophils at screening visit: either ≥150 cells·μL−1, ≥300 cells·μL−1 at any point in the previous year, or those who were non-eosinophilic (<150 cells·μL−1); while METREO included only those with an eosinophilic phenotype. The primary end-point of both trials was yearly rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Secondary end-points were time to first exacerbation, emergency department visits, hospitalisation, and average yearly changes in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test scores. Results were controlled for smoking status, number of exacerbations in the previous year, baseline disease severity (percentage of predicted FEV1) and geographic region.

Key results

METREX

836 patients were analysed according to an intention-to-treat analysis. 94% or more patients were Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group D COPD (≥2 exacerbations in total, ≥1 leading to hospitalisation, and either a Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale score of ≥2 or a COPD Assessment Test score of ≥10). There was a significant difference in annual exacerbation rates in those with an eosinophilic phenotype (≥150 cells·μL−1 at screening visit or ≥300 cells·μL−1 at any point in the previous year) between the mepolizumab groups and placebo groups (rate ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.68–0.98; p=0.04). In the undifferentiated population there was no significant difference in exacerbation rates between mepolizumab and placebo (1.49 versus 1.52 per year, respectively). Regarding secondary end-points, those with an eosinophilic phenotype had a significantly increased time to exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.60–0.94; p=0.04), but there was no significant difference in the undifferentiated population. A pre-specified meta-analysis was performed by stratifying screening blood eosinophil count as follows: <150 and a history of ≥300 cells·μL−1 in the previous year; ≥150 to <300 cells·μL−1; ≥300 to <500 cells·μL−1; and ≥500 cells·μL−1. Patients with higher blood eosinophil count had a greater benefit from mepolizumab. In particular, in those with blood eosinophils ≥300 cells·μL−1, the exacerbation rate was 23% lower in those treated with mepolizumab than placebo.

METREO

674 were included in the intention-to-treat protocol. Patients received mepolizumab at 100 mg (low dose), mepolizumab at 300 mg (high dose) or a placebo, with the primary aim of determining optimal dosing of mepolizumab. Similarly, 94% or more patients were GOLD group D COPD patients. METREO did not show any significant benefit from high-dose mepolizumab compared to low-dose mepolizumab in eosinophilic patients.

Safety

The most commonly reported side-effects were exacerbations or worsening of COPD, nasopharyngitis, headache and pneumonia. While METREX and METREO had 4% and 3% mortality rates, respectively, rates were comparable with the placebo group. Similarly, there was no significant difference in systemic reaction, injection site reaction or event leading to treatment discontinuation between the groups in either trial.

Strengths and limitations

These were the largest trials of targeted IL-5 therapy in COPD. METREX and METREO set out to ask the specific question of whether mepolizumab can reduce the rate of exacerbations in patients with severe COPD. Pavord et al. [16] have highlighted a population of COPD patients that may specifically benefit from targeted therapy in this form, namely those with raised blood eosinophils who have a high rate of exacerbations despite maximal standard therapy. These studies showed that patients with high blood eosinophils in the context of severe COPD with frequent exacerbations benefit from a 4-weekly 100-mg subcutaneous injection of mepolizumab. This benefit is realised in terms of reduced exacerbation rate and time to next exacerbation. Despite this, lung volumes and quality of life indices were not significantly altered. Although mortality was only measured as part of a composite end-point (i.e. COPD exacerbations), the death rate was low overall and broadly comparable between groups.

Prior to METREX/METREO, Brightling et al. [12] reported hopeful results on the use of benralizumab, an IL-5 receptor monoclonal antibody, in COPD patients with raised blood eosinophils. They experienced a significant improvement in lung function, albeit with no change in exacerbation rate. The discrepancy in results between mepolizumab and benralizumab is most likely due to differences in trial population. The benralizumab trial population had fewer exacerbations at baseline, had slightly less severe COPD, and included only current smokers or ex-smokers. Similarly, the difference in trial populations may explain why those in the benralizumab trial experienced a significant improvement in pre-bronchodilator FEV1, unlike with mepolizumab. Interestingly, this may reflect an important relationship between smoking status, blood eosinophils and treatment response.

This study by Pavord et al. [16] relies upon stratifying patients by blood eosinophil level at a single time point. This strategy is clinically feasible and applicable to practical medicine. Blood eosinophil levels have been previously demonstrated to be stable over time: Southworth et al. [18] showed that >80% of patients using the blood eosinophil cut-off of 150 cells·μL−1 will remain either eosinophilic or non-eosinophilic after 6 months or 2 years, suggesting that blood eosinophil level is a stable marker of phenotype.

In these two trials, the incidence of pneumonia was higher (9–11%) than in other trials involving a similar cohort of COPD patients (2–7%) [11]. The authors posit that this may be due to all patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of pneumonia between the mepolizumab and placebo groups in both trials. This potentially highlights the need for steroid-sparing agents in the treatment of COPD.

Conclusion

Mepolizumab benefits patients with severe, treatment-resistant COPD who frequently exacerbate and have raised blood eosinophil levels, to reduce the rate of exacerbations and time to next exacerbation. The treatment effect increases with increasing baseline blood eosinophil level. Despite the heterogeneity of COPD, this study draws attention to a phenotype based solely on blood eosinophils, which may benefit from personalised treatment when standard therapies fall short. Further research harnessing the ideals of precision medicine may lead to further unique pathways and a potential agent to replace corticosteroids.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: None declared.

  • Copyright ©ERS 2018

Breathe articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Singh D,
    2. Kolsum U,
    3. Brightling CE, et al.
    Eosinophilic inflammation in COPD: prevalence and clinical characteristics. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1697–1700.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Hastie AT,
    2. Martinez FJ,
    3. Curtis JL, et al.
    Association of sputum and blood eosinophil concentrations with clinical measures of COPD severity: an analysis of the SPIROMICS cohort. Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5: 956–967.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Kolsum U,
    2. Damera G,
    3. Pham TH, et al.
    Pulmonary inflammation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with higher blood eosinophil counts. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2017; 140: 1181–1184.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Pascoe S,
    2. Locantore N,
    3. Dransfield MT, et al.
    Blood eosinophil counts, exacerbations, and response to the addition of inhaled fluticasone furoate to vilanterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a secondary analysis of data from two parallel randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med 2015; 3: 435–442.
    OpenUrl
    1. Siva R,
    2. Green RH,
    3. Brightling CE, et al.
    Eosinophilic airway inflammation and exacerbations of COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2007; 29: 906–913.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Kerkhof M,
    2. Sonnappa S,
    3. Postma DS, et al.
    Blood eosinophil count and exacerbation risk in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700761.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Brightling CE,
    2. McKenna S,
    3. Hargadon B, et al.
    Sputum eosinophilia and the short term response to inhaled mometasone in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 2005; 60: 193–198.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Siddiqui SH,
    2. Guasconi A,
    3. Vestbo J, et al.
    Blood eosinophils: a biomarker of response to extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: 523–525.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Bafadhel M,
    2. Peterson S,
    3. De Blas MA, et al.
    Predictors of exacerbation risk and response to budesonide in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post-hoc analysis of three randomised trials. Lancet Respir Med 2018; 6: 117–126.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Suissa S,
    2. Patenaude V,
    3. Lapi F, et al.
    Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD and the risk of serious pneumonia. Thorax 2013; 68: 1029–1036.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Dransfield MT,
    2. Bourbeau J,
    3. Jones PW, et al.
    Once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate and vilanterol versus vilanterol only for prevention of exacerbations of COPD: two replicate double-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med 2013; 1: 210–223.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Brightling CE,
    2. Bleecker ER,
    3. Panettieri RA Jr., et al.
    Benralizumab for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sputum eosinophilia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a study. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 891–901.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Bel EH,
    2. Wenzel SE,
    3. Thompson PJ, et al.
    Oral glucocorticoid-sparing effect of mepolizumab in eosinophilic asthma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1189–1197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Farne HA,
    2. Wilson A,
    3. Powell C, et al.
    Anti-IL5 therapies for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9: CD010834.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Powell C,
    2. Milan SJ,
    3. Dwan K, et al.
    Mepolizumab versus placebo for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015: 7: CD010834.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Pavord ID,
    2. Chanez P,
    3. Criner GJ, et al.
    Mepolizumab for eosinophilic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1613–1629.
    OpenUrl
    1. Celli BR,
    2. MacNee W
    . Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper. Eur Respir J 2004: 23: 932–946.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Southworth T,
    2. Beech G,
    3. Foden P, et al.
    The reproducibility of COPD blood eosinophil counts. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800427.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 14 Issue 4 Table of Contents
Breathe: 14 (4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Precision medicine in COPD: review of mepolizumab for eosinophilic COPD
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Precision medicine in COPD: review of mepolizumab for eosinophilic COPD
Gabriella Long, Jasmine Wall
Breathe Dec 2018, 14 (4) 338-341; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.026318

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Precision medicine in COPD: review of mepolizumab for eosinophilic COPD
Gabriella Long, Jasmine Wall
Breathe Dec 2018, 14 (4) 338-341; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.026318
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Study design
    • Key results
    • Strengths and limitations
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Respiratory clinical practice
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Expert opinion

  • Lung cancer screening by volume CT
  • In pursuit of the primary
  • A rare complication in a case of nonsmall cell lung carcinoma
Show more Expert opinion

Journal club

  • Impact of triple therapy on mortality in COPD
  • CPAP for secondary cardiovascular prevention in OSA patients
  • Maternal vaccination during pregnancy against infant respiratory viruses
Show more Journal club

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About Breathe

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Intructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 1810-6838
Online ISSN: 2073-4735

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society