Asthma Intervention Research 2 (AIR2) Trial

Print Email
Citation

Castro M, Rubin AS, Laviolette M, Fiterman J, De Andrade Lima M, Shah PL, Fiss E, Olivenstein R, Thomson NC, Niven RM, Pavord ID, Simoff M, et al.
Effectiveness and safety of bronchial thermoplasty in the treatment of severe asthma. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010; 181:116-124.

Objective

The objective of this randomized, double blind, sham-controlled study was to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the Alair® Bronchial Thermoplasty System in a population of subjects with severe asthma who are still symptomatic despite being managed on conventional therapy of high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS – doses greater than 1000?g per day beclomethasone or equivalent) and long-acting ?2-agonists (LABA – doses of at least 100?g per day salmeterol or equivalent).

Design

An international, multi-center, randomized, double-blind sham-controlled trial conducted at 30 Investigational Sites in 6 countries comparing the effects of treatment with the Alair® Bronchial Thermoplasty System plus conventional drug therapy of ICS and LABA with sham bronchoscopy plus conventional drug therapy of ICS and LABA.

Subjects meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent baseline evaluations, followed by bronchial thermoplasty (BT) Treatment or Sham bronchoscopy procedures (depending upon randomization), and underwent follow-up evaluations at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months post procedure.

Long-term follow up of BT treated patients to include annual visits out to 5 years.

Blinding

Separate teams of study personnel were employed at each site in order to maintain blinding of the study. The unblinded team (Bronchoscopy Team) performed both the Sham and BT procedures. A separate blinded team (Assessment Team) conducted the baseline and post-procedure follow-up evaluations on the subjects.

All study subjects were blinded.

Methods

Subjects in the BT Group received the Alair® treatment during three separate bronchoscopy sessions while subjects in the Sham Group received three separate sham bronchoscopy procedures. All subjects continued on their prescribed maintenance asthma medications throughout the study. All subjects completed follow-up evaluations at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months after the last bronchoscopy session. Subjects were required to record in a diary their peak expiratory flow rates, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication usage for pre-specified periods throughout the study. Following the 12 month evaluation, Sham group subjects were exited from the study, while BT Group subjects will complete 4 subsequent annual follow-up evaluations for safety. The blind was broken at the 12-month visit.

Primary Endpoint

Difference between study groups in the change in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores from baseline to the integrated score at 6, 9, and 12 month evaluations.

Secondary Endpoints
  • Percent of Symptom Free Days
  • Symptom Scores
  • Morning Peak Expiratory Flow (am PEF)
  • Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) Score
  • Rescue medication use
  • Severe exacerbations (rates and proportion of subjects having severe exacerbations)
  • Time lost from work/school/other daily activities due to asthma symptoms
  • Forced expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) (safety endpoint)
Safety

Safety was assessed by comparing the incidence and types of adverse events reported for the subjects in each group during the Treatment Period (day of 1st bronchoscopy till 6 weeks after the 3rd bronchoscopy), and the Post-Treatment Period (from 6 weeks after the 3rd bronchoscopy till 12 months).

Safety was also assessed by comparing unscheduled physicians office visits for respiratory symptoms, emergency room visits for respiratory symptoms, and hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms.

Results

A total of 297 Subjects (18-65 years) meeting study inclusion/exclusion criteria were randomized to the BT group (196) or a Sham group (101) in a 2 to 1 randomization scheme.

288 subjects (190 BT group and 98 Sham group) underwent the bronchoscopy procedures.

Effectiveness

Key findings for BT treated patients versus Sham during the Post-Treatrment Period:

  • Mean change in the integrated AQLQ score was greater in the BT group than in the Sham group. (Posterior Probability of Superiority was 96.0%)
    • Mean improvement over baseline in AQLQ Score was 1.35 in BT group
    • 79% of BT group achieved ? 0.5 change in AQLQ score from baseline, compared to 64% in Sham group
  • 32% reduction in severe exacerbations
  • 34% reduction in % of subjects with severe exacerbations
  • 84% reduction in emergency room visits for respiratory symptoms
  • 73% reduction in hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms
  • 76% reduction in % of subjects with emergency room visits
  • 66% reduction in time lost from work/school/other daily activities due to asthma
  • 36% reduction in asthma (multiple symptoms) adverse events
  • No deterioration in FEV1 over time
  • Secondary endpoints trended positively; differences were not statistically significant
  • No subjects withdrawn from the study due to worsening of asthma.

Safety
Treatment Phase

  • BT resulted in a transient increase in respiratory adverse events peri-procedure with more events reported in the BT (85% of subjects; 1.0 events/bronchoscopy) than in the Sham group (76% of subjects; 0.7 events/bronchoscopy).

  • The severity of respiratory adverse events for the BT and sham groups was as follows: mild, 43.6 versus 58.7%; moderate, 53.2 versus 39.8%; and severe, 3.1 versus 1.5%, respectively. The most common events were typical of airway irritation, including worsening asthma symptoms (wheezing, chest discomfort, cough, and chest pain), and upper respiratory tract infections.

  • The majority of respiratory adverse events occurred within 1 day of the bronchoscopy and resolved within 7 days.

    In addition, there is a small possibility (3.4% per procedure) that the temporary worsening of asthma symptoms after a procedure may result in the patient being admitted to the hospital for management of asthma symptoms.

    • During the treatment period, 16 subjects (8.4%) in the BT group required 19 hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms (worsening of asthma, 12 in 10 subjects; segmental atelectasis, 3 in 2 subjects; lower respiratory tract infection, one subject; low FEV1, one subject; hemoptysis, one subject; and aspirated prosthetic tooth; one subject) compared with two subjects (2.0%) in the sham group requiring two hospitalizations (both worsening of asthma).
    • Ten of the 19 hospitalizations in the BT group occurred on the day of the procedure. All these events resolved with standard therapy, including the hemoptysis, which was managed with bronchial artery embolization.
  • There were more unscheduled physician office visits and hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the BT Group compared to the Sham group; however, there was no increase in ER visits for respiratory symptoms in the BT group compared to the Sham group.

Post-Treatment Phase

  • There was a lower incidence of asthma (multiple symptoms) in the BT Group compared to the Sham group.
    • 36% reduction in asthma (multiple symptoms) adverse events
    • 36% reduction in the proportion of subjects reporting asthma (multiple symptoms) adverse events
  • There was a reduction in respiratory symptoms, ER visits and hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms
  • No deterioration in either the pre-or post-bronchodilator FEV1
  • The mean doses of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ?2-agonist were stable out to 1 year
  • No radiological findings of clinical significance observed in high resolution CT scans taken at 1 year.
Conclusions

BT delivered by the Alair® System provides long term asthma control in patients with severe asthma out to one year

The Alair® System is safe and effective for the treatment of severe persistent asthma in adults

 

AIR2 Trial: Participating Institutions and Investigators
United States
Institution Principal Investigator Co-Investigator
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX William Lunn, MD Nicola Hanania, MD
Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA Michael Wechsler, MD Elliot Israel, MD
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH Serpil Erzurum, MD Tom Gildea, MD Atul Mehta, MD
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC Monica Kraft, MD Momen Wahidi, MD
Health Partners Specialty Center, Regions Hospital, St. Paul, MN Charlene McEvoy, MD Krista Graven, MD
Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI Michael Simoff, MD Edward Zoratti, MD
Johns Hopkins University School Medicine, Baltimore, MD Rex Yung, MD Nadia Hansel, MD
Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA Brian Louie, MD Linda Anderson, MD
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL Imre Noth, MD Kyle Hogarth, MD
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IO Geoffrey McLennan, MD Joel Kline, MD
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Daniel Sterman, MD Ali Musani, MD Michael Sims, MD
USC School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA Richard Barbers, MD Ricardo Juarez, MD
Veritas Clinical Specialties, Topeka, KS William Leeds, MD Laura Ludlow, PA
Virginia Hospital Center, Arlington, VA David Duhamel, MD Jeff Hales, MD
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO Mario Castro, MD Martin Mayse, MD

 

AIR2 Trial: Participating Institutions and Investigators
Canada
Institution Principal Investigator Co-Investigator
Hôpital Laval, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada Michel Laviolette, MD Simon Martel, MD Louis-Phillipe Boulet, MD
Montreal Chest Institute, Montreal, Canada Ronald Olivenstein, MD Jean Bourbeau, MD
St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Gerard Cox, MD John Miller, MD
Europe
Institution Principal Investigator Co-Investigator
Birmingham Heartlands Hosp., Birmingham, UK Adel Mansur, MD Sherwood Burge, MD
Chelsea & Westminster Hosp., London, UK Pallav Shah, MD Suveer Singh, MD
Gartnavel General Hosp., Univ. Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Neil Thompson, MD Rekha Chaudhuri, MD
Glenfield General Hospital, Leicester, UK Ian Pavord, MD Neil Martin, MD
Wythenshawe Hosp., Univ. of Manchester, Manchester, UK Robert Niven, MD Tony Pickering, MD Curig Prys-Picard. MD
University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Nicolaas HT ten Hacken, MD Dirk-Jan Slebos, MD
Australia
Institution Principal Investigator Co-Investigator
Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia Mark Holmes, MD Hubertus Jersmann, MD
Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia Martin Phillips, MD Kerry Boughton
Brazil
Institution Principal Investigator Co-Investigator
Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Sao Paulo, Brazil Elie Fiss, MD Claudio Rufino Gomes, Jr., MD Maria Enedina, MD
Hospital São Lucas da PUCRS, Porto Alegre, Brazil Jussara Fiterman, MD Virgilio Tonietto, MD Fábio M Haggsträm, MD
Hospital Univeritario Clementino Graga Filho, Rio de Janiero, Brazil Jose Roberto Lapa, MD Marina de Andrade Lima, MD
Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia Porto Alegre, Brazil Adalberto S Rubin, MD Paulo Cardoso, MD Manuela Cavalcanti, MD

Follow

Facebook
Twitter
Youtube