Search

Definitions and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials and practice often vary, as highlighted in the manuscript, “Is asthma control more than just an absence of symptoms? An expert consensus statement”. Furthermore, the authors discussed differences between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in terms of understanding and managing asthma. Given these disparities, there is a need for consensus regarding what constitutes well-controlled asthma and, especially, how best it can be measured and recorded. In the current work, we describe our data and provide more detail on the methodology from a two-stage Delphi survey and a structured literature review, which were designed to reach a consensus definition of asthma control and alleviate misalignments between patients and HCPs. Survey data were collected using a two-stage Delphi technique; a method used to collate expert opinions over a series of sequential questionnaires to reach a consensus. The collated Delphi survey data were compared with results from a comprehensive, structured literature review of 216 publications, to assess if there was a correlation between existing guidance and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials and standard clinical practice. In order to collate and interpret findings from the Delphi survey, responses from 82 panelists (73 HCPs and 9 authors) were qualitatively analyzed, quantitatively categorized, and presented as percentages or counts in Excel databases, which are detailed in the current work. Searches conducted using PubMed and Cochrane identified 664 manuscripts, and Embase was used to identify 89 congress abstracts. After applying a stringent screening method using predefined key words, the structured literature review consisted of 185 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 31 congress abstracts, and assessed existing guidance and measures of asthma control used in clinical trials. In this publication, we provide further insight into the predefined keywords, search strings, and strategy applied to identify manuscripts and congress abstracts for inclusion/exclusion, and detail methods for data extraction. Together, the data from the Delphi survey and structured literature review aimed to provide greater insights into challenges and approaches in achieving asthma control in clinical practice, with the potential for results to be used to guide a universally accepted definition and measure of asthma control that can be used and understood by patients, HCPs, and researchers. Qualitative and quantitative methodology and analysis from the Delphi survey and literature review search strategy can potentially be used to identify disparities and explore expert opinion and relevant literature in other therapeutic areas to guide a consensus where disparities exist.

The concept of asthma control is fundamental because it establishes a target for treatment, but despite the diversity of definitions, a high proportion of patients fail to achieve it. In this article, we highlight the shortcomings of the current concept of control by discussing aspects such as the differences between patient- and physician-perceived control and the limitations of the tools used to assess it. We also comment on the drawbacks of the stepwise approach to achieve control recommended by guidelines: the absence of conclusive evidence on the exclusive use of as-needed budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma, the lack of consideration of the different pharmacological properties of the currently available inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and ignoring the existence of different asthma endotypes, some of which are resistant to these drugs. Other aspects, such as adherence to medication, the use of rescue medication, the influence of the inhalation device, the particle size, the pharmacological characteristics, and the lung deposition of ICS, are also mentioned. As an alternative to the guidelines´ recommendations, we propose a more customized approach based on the identification of therapeutic goals and treatable traits.

Background An objective of the Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Registry, Patient-centered (SHARP) is to produce real-world evidence on a pan-European scale by linking nonstandardised, patient-level registry data. Mepolizumab has shown clinical efficacy in randomised controlled trials and prospective real-world studies and could therefore serve as a proof of principle for this novel approach. The aim of the present study was to harmonise data from 10 national severe asthma registries and characterise patients receiving mepolizumab, assess its effectiveness on annual exacerbations and maintenance oral glucocorticoid (OCS) use, and evaluate treatment patterns. Methods In this observational cohort study, registry data (5871 patients) were extracted for harmonisation. Where harmonisation was possible, patients who initiated mepolizumab between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2021 were examined. Changes of a 12-month (range 11–18 months) period in frequent (two or more) exacerbations, maintenance OCS use and dose were analysed in a privacy-preserving manner using meta-analysis of generalised estimating equation parameters. Periods before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were analysed separately. Results In 912 patients who fulfilled selection criteria, mepolizumab significantly reduced frequent exacerbations (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.13–0.25), maintenance OCS use (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61–0.92) and dose (mean −3.93 mg·day−1, 95% CI −5.24–2.62 mg·day−1) in the pre-pandemic group, with similar trends in the pandemic group. Marked heterogeneity was observed between registries in patient characteristics and mepolizumab treatment patterns. Conclusions By harmonising patient-level registry data and applying federated analysis, SHARP demonstrated the real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab on asthma exacerbations and maintenance OCS use in severe asthma patients across Europe, consistent with previous evidence. This paves the way for future pan-European real-world severe asthma studies using patient-level data in a privacy-proof manner.

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are both highly prevalent conditions that can coexist in the same individual: the so-called ‘asthma -COPD overlap’ (ACO). Its prevalence and prognosis vary widely depending on how ACO is defined in each publication, the severity of bronchial obstruction of patients included and the treatment they are receiving. Although there is a lack of evidence about the biology of ACO, the overlap of both diseases should express a mixture of a Th1 inflammatory pattern (characteristic of COPD) and a Th2 signature (characteristic of asthma). In this review we support a novel algorithm for ACO diagnosis proposed by the Spanish Respiratory Society (SEPAR), based on a sequential evaluation that considers: (a) the presence of chronic airflow limitation in a smoker or ex-smoker patient ⩾35 years old; (b) a current diagnosis of asthma; and (c) the existence of a very positive bronchodilator test (PBT; ⩾15% and ⩾400 ml) or the presence of eosinophilia in blood (⩾300 eosinophils/μl). This algorithm can identify those patients who may benefit from a treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and maybe from biological drugs in a near future. In addition, it is easily applicable in clinical practice. The major disadvantage is that it groups patients with very different characteristics under the ACO’s umbrella. In view of this heterogeneity, we recommend a strategy of defining specific and measurable therapeutic objectives for every single patient and identifying the traits that can be treated to achieve those objectives.

BackgroundTo date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials.AimTo elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life.MethodsThis was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers.ResultsOverall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and

Abstract Background Severe asthma exerts a disproportionately heavy burden on patients and health care. Due to the heterogeneity of the severe asthma population, many patients need to be evaluated to understand the clinical features and outcomes of severe asthma in order to facilitate personalised and targeted care. The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) is a multi-country registry project initiated to aid in this endeavour. Methods ISAR is a multi-disciplinary initiative benefitting from the combined experience of the ISAR Steering Committee (ISC; comprising 47 clinicians and researchers across 29 countries, who have a special interest and/or experience in severe asthma management or establishment and maintenance of severe asthma registries) in collaboration with scientists and experts in database management and communication. Patients (≥18 years old) receiving treatment according to the 2018 definitions of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 5 or uncontrolled on GINA Step 4 treatment will be included. Data will be collected on a core set of 95 variables identified using the Delphi method. Participating registries will agree to provide access to and share standardised anonymous patient-level data with ISAR. ISAR is a registered data source on the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. ISAR’s collaborators include Optimum Patient Care, the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and AstraZeneca. ISAR is overseen by the ISC, REG, the Anonymised Data Ethics & Protocol Transparency Committee and the ISAR operational committee, ensuring the conduct of ethical, clinically relevant research that brings value to all key stakeholders. Conclusions ISAR aims to offer a rich source of real-life data for scientific research to understand and improve disease burden, treatment patterns and patient outcomes in severe asthma. Furthermore, the registry will provide an international platform for research collaboration in respiratory medicine, with the overarching aim of improving primary and secondary care of adults with severe asthma globally.