Exacerbation risk in patients with bronchiectasis receiving DPP-1 inhibitors vs placebo: A meta-analysis of RCTs

Background: No therapies have been approved to alter bronchiectasis progression. Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1) inhibitors, which target neutrophil serine protease activation, are under investigation as potential disease-modifying agents.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DPP-1 inhibitors versus placebo in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP were searched from inception until April 26, 2025. Primary outcomes included time to first exacerbation and proportion of patients remaining exacerbation-free. Secondary outcomes included post-bronchodilator % Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV1), Quality of Life-Bronchiectasis (QoL-B) questionnaire scores, and rate of adverse events. Time-to-event outcome was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier (KM)-estimated individual patient data (IPD), whereas random-effects meta-analyses were performed for remaining outcomes.

Results: 2523 patients from four RCTs were included, of whom 1689 (66.9 %) received DPP-1 inhibitors. Compared with placebo, DPP-1 inhibitors prolonged the time to first exacerbation (HR 0.79; 95 % CI: 0.71 to 0.88) and increased the proportion of patients remaining exacerbation-free (RR 1.33; 95 % CI 1.12 to 1.58). A slower decline in post-bronchodilator % FEV1 was observed (MD 1.1 %; 95 % CI 0.05 to 2.15), but no difference in QoL-B scores (MD 1.35; 95 % CI -0.72 to 3.42). The safety profile of DPP-1 inhibitors was acceptable and comparable to placebo. Moderate certainty was found across endpoints.

Conclusions: DPP-1 inhibitors prolong time to first exacerbation and reduce exacerbation rates in patients with bronchiectasis, with an acceptable safety profile. These findings support their potential as a disease-modifying strategy.

Registration: PROSPERO (CRD420251042542).

Keywords: Bronchiectasis; DPP-1 inhibitor; Dipeptidyl-peptidases and tripeptidyl-peptidases; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Systematic review.

Author/s:

Giulia Carvalhal, Júlia Moreira Diniz, Larissa Calixto Hespanhol, David Curi Barbosa Izoton Cabral, Jafar Aljazeeri

Dupilumab for COPD with Blood Eosinophil Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation

Alex Haga — Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:27:10 +0000

Date Added:

June 30, 2024

Journal/Publication:

New England Journal of Medicine

Publication Date:

May 20, 2024

Issue:

Volume:

390

URL:

Dupilumab for COPD with Blood Eosinophil Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1056/NEJMoa2401304

Keywords

PMID (1):

38767614

MeSH

Antibodies

Monoclonal

Humanized* / adverse effects

Humanized* / therapeutic use

Eosinophils*

Forced Expiratory Volume / drug effects

Inflammation

Leukocyte Count

Pulmonary Disease

Chronic Obstructive* / blood

Dupilumab (Dupixent) appears to reduce exacerbations and improve FEV1 in patients with COPD with elevated blood eosinophil counts. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Background: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation, has shown efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation and an elevated risk of exacerbation. Whether the findings would be confirmed in a second phase 3 trial was unclear.

Methods: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per microliter or higher to receive subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Key secondary end points, analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the changes from baseline in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at weeks 12 and 52 and in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating better quality of life) total score at week 52.

Results: A total of 935 patients underwent randomization: 470 were assigned to the dupilumab group and 465 to the placebo group. As prespecified, the primary analysis was performed after a positive interim analysis and included all available data for the 935 participants, 721 of whom were included in the analysis at week 52. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.06) with dupilumab and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) with placebo; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 with dupilumab (least-squares mean change, 139 ml [95% CI, 105 to 173]) as compared with placebo (least-squares mean change, 57 ml [95% CI, 23 to 91]), with a significant least-squares mean difference at week 12 of 82 ml (P<0.001) and at week 52 of 62 ml (P = 0.02). No significant between-group difference was observed in the change in SGRQ scores from baseline to 52 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups and consistent with the established profile of dupilumab.

Conclusions: In patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, dupilumab was associated with fewer exacerbations and better lung function than placebo.

Author/s:

Surya P Bhatt, Klaus F Rabe, Nicola A Hanania, Claus F Vogelmeier, Mona Bafadhel, Stephanie A Christenson