4.6 Article

A phase II placebo-controlled study of tralokinumab in moderate-to-severe asthma

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 330-338

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00223411

Keywords

Asthma; CAT-354; interleukin-13; lung function; monoclonal antibody; tralokinumab

Funding

  1. MedImmune

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pre-clinical data demonstrate a pivotal role for interleukin (IL)-13 in the development and maintenance of asthma. This study assessed the effects of tralokinumab, an investigational human IL-13-neutralising immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody, in adults with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma despite controller therapies. 194 subjects were randomised to receive tralokinumab (150, 300 or 600 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Primary end-point was change from baseline in mean Asthma Control Questionnaire score (ACQ-6; ACQ mean of six individual item scores) at week 13 comparing placebo and combined tralokinumab dose groups. Secondary end-points included pre-bronchodilator lung function, rescue beta(2)-agonist use and safety. Numerical end-points are reported as mean +/- SD. At week 13, change from baseline in ACQ-6 was -0.76 +/- 1.04 for tralokinumab versus -0.61 +/- 0.90 for placebo (p=0.375). Increases from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were 0.21 +/- 0.38 L versus 0.06 +/- 0.48 L (p=0.072), with a dose-response observed across the tralokinumab doses tested. beta(2)-agonist use (puffs per day) was decreased for tralokinumab -0.68 +/- 1.45 versus placebo -0.10 +/- 1.49 (p=0.020). The increase in FEV1 following tralokinumab treatment remained evident 12 weeks after the final dose. Safety profile was acceptable with no serious adverse events related to tralokinumab. No improvement in ACQ-6 was observed, although tralokinumab treatment was associated with improved lung function.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available