This study tests whether an asthma medication called dupilumab can help people achieve complete asthma control (called "remission") when given earlier in their disease, before asthma becomes severe. Currently, most people with asthma only receive advanced treatments like biologics after their condition has worsened significantly and caused lung damage. This study explores whether treating high-risk patients earlier could prevent asthma attacks and lung function decline, potentially achieving remission before permanent damage occurs. The study is looking for adults aged 18-79 with moderate asthma who have had at least one asthma attack requiring steroid pills in the past 2 years, use medium or high-dose inhaled steroids regularly, have high levels of inflammation markers in their blood and breath tests, but don't yet meet criteria for severe asthma requiring biologic therapy. Participants receive either dupilumab or placebo injections every 2 weeks for one year, alongside their regular asthma medications. They attend clinic visits every 3 months for breathing tests, questionnaires, and safety monitoring. Neither participants nor doctors know who receives the real medication until the study ends. The goal is to learn whether early treatment with dupilumab helps more people achieve complete asthma control compared to standard care alone, potentially changing how asthma is treated from "waiting until severe" to "preventing severe disease." The study runs in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, involving 150 participants
Asthma is a prevalent chronic respiratory disease for which 44% of people require oral corticosteroids (OCS) every year 1 . Whilst asthma is still managed on a damage-based schema allowing for unacceptable toxicities and irreversible airway remodelling, dupilumab and other type-2 targeting biologics have taught us that people with the highest type-2 inflammatory burden can achieve life-changing responses 2-6 . The term 'remission' has been used to describe the best possible outcome with biologics 5 . Across studies and molecules, remission was more likely to be achieved in people with shorter disease duration, lower morbidity, and higher type-2 inflammatory biomarkers 5,7-9 . These observations have increased interest in the earlier use of biologics in a Predict and Prevent framework 5,10-12 . The HOTHOT study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the effect of dupilumab on induction of clinical remission outcomes in type-2 high patients recruited before they develop severe uncontrolled asthma meeting current biological treatment recommendations. Dupilumab will be compared with placebo in 150 patients undergoing traditional symptom-based inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) up- and down-titration (as per current asthma guidelines). The target population is at-risk type-2 high asthma, defined as at-least medium-dose ICS, with a previous history of a systemic corticosteroid (SCS)-treated asthma attack in the last 24 months and blood eosinophils ≥ 0.3×109/L plus exhaled nitric oxide ≥35 ppb. These inclusion criteria are unique because they will target people with asthma who are at risk of severe asthma attacks and lung function decline, also not meeting current biological prescription/reimbursement criteria. The one-year active treatment adjustment period of the study will test the hypothesis that remission outcomes are more likely to be achieved with early targeted intervention with dupilumab compared to traditional symptom-guided management, where ICS up- and down-titration occurs independently of the presence of type-2 inflammation. The primary outcome, the win ratio based on remission criteria, assesses the likelihood of achieving remission 'wins' based on a hierarchy of criteria, while the secondary remission multi-component (yes/no) outcome, a binary (yes/no) multi-component endpoint for remission, offers a straightforward and comprehensive measure. The primary and secondary remission outcome measurements are both powered to be statistically and clinically impactful to move the need forward in the field of asthma. If correct, the hypothesis that earlier intervention with dupilumab significantly induces remission will shift the treatment paradigm from the usual 'wait and react' approach to a proactive risk-based 'predict and prevent' intervention using earlier targeted therapy in at-risk type-2 inflammatory disease.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Enrollment
150
Dupilumab 400mg subcut x1 followed by 200mg subcut every 2 weeks
Volume-matched placebo injected subcut every 2 weeks
Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital
Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
McGill University Health Centre
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Québec, Quebec, Canada
CIUSSS de l'Estrie- CHUS
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust - John Radcliffe Hospital
Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Win ratio based on remission criteria
Win ratio comparing patients achieving clinical remission outcomes in dupilumab group vs placebo group, based on remission criteria. The unmatched paired testing will follow this hierarchy: 1. Study participant has not had a severe asthma attack between weeks 4 and 56 2. Number of asthma attacks between weeks 4 and 56 3. Improved or stable lung function (defined as a decline from parent study baseline in pre- or postbronchodilator FEV1 by no more than 5%) at Week 56 4. No more than medium-dose ICS maintenance therapy (as defined by GINA 2025) at Week 56 5. 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire mean score \<1.5 at Week 56
Time frame: Week 4 to Week 56 (except FEV1 change: Week 0 values serve as baseline)
Annualised severe asthma attack rate
Reduction in annualised severe asthma attack rate with dupilumab vs placebo
Time frame: Week 4 to Week 56
Win ratio for clinical remission in medium-dose ICS subgroup
Win ratio comparing remission outcomes in dupilumab vs placebo among patients on medium-dose ICS at enrolment. The unmatched paired testing will follow this hierarchy: 1. Study participant has not had a severe asthma attack between weeks 4 and 56 2. Number of asthma attacks between weeks 4 and 56 3. Improved or stable lung function (defined as a decline from parent study baseline in pre- or postbronchodilator FEV1 by no more than 5%) at Week 56 4. No more than medium-dose ICS maintenance therapy (as defined by GINA 2025) at Week 56 5. 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire mean score \<1.5 at Week 56
Time frame: Week 4 to Week 56 (except FEV1 change: Week 0 values serve as baseline)
Change in FEV1 postbronchodilator
Change in FEV1 postbronchodilator (L) with dupilumab vs placebo
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Proportion of patients achieving clinical remission at 1 year
Proportion of patients achieving clinical remission at 1 year in dupilumab vs placebo group Study participants meet ALL of the follow criteria at Week 56: 1. Study participant has not had a severe asthma attack between weeks 4 and 56 2. Improved or stable lung function (defined as a decline from parent study baseline in pre- or postbronchodilator FEV1 by no more than 5%) at Week 56 3. No more than medium-dose ICS maintenance therapy (as defined by GINA 2025) at Week 56 4. ACQ5 \<1.5 at Week 56
Time frame: Week 4 to Week 56 (except FEV1 change: Week 0 values serve as baseline)
Effect of dupilumab on corticosteroid use, compared to placebo
Cumulative prescribed dose of systemic corticosteroids (prednisone-equivalent mg)
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on asthma symptoms, compared to placebo
Change from in 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (mean score). The score ranges from 0 to 6 : higher scores indicate worse asthma control.
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on absenteism, compared to placebo
Cumulative time off work or education due to asthma symptoms
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on unplanned healthcare attendencances, compared to placebo
Cumulative number of unplanned healthcare attendances
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on emergency room attendance, compared to placebo
Cumulative number of emergency department visits
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on hospilisation use, compared to placebo
Cumulative number of hospitalisations
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on asthma-related quality of life, compared to placebo
Change in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire with Standardised Activities AQLQ(S). The score ranges from 1 to 7 : higher scores indicate better quality of life.
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on respiratory disease-related quality of life, compared to placebo
Change in Saint-George Respiratory Questionnaire. The score ranges from 0 to 100 : higher scores indicate worse health status.
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on health-related quality of life, compared to placebo
Change in health-related quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D. The index value typically ranges from approximately -0.59 to 1.0: higher values indicate better health related quality of life.
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on work and activity productivity, compared to placebo
Change in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Score for asthma (WPAI-Asthma). The score ranges from 0 to 100 percent: higher values indicate greater impairment or worse outcomes.
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on maintenance ICS dose, compared to placebo
Change in maintenance ICS dose (continuous and categorical: very low, low, medium, high-dose , as per GINA 2025)
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on type-2 biomarkers, compared to placebo
Change in blood eosinophil count, FeNO, and IgE levels, expressed as % relative to baseline
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab on reported usage of reliever medication, compared to placebo
Change in reported usage of reliever medication (mean reliever use per week)
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
Effect of dupilumab vs placebo on sino-nasal symptoms
Change in Sino Nasal Outcome Test 22 score. The score ranges from 0 to 110 : higher scores indicate worse symptom severity.
Time frame: Week 0 to Week 56
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.