Search

Background: To 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. Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life. Methods: This 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. Results: Overall, 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 antiI-IL4R alpha. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/mu L), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and - anti- IL4R alpha, 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-IL4R alpha, 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

Background: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma. Methods: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV 1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day. Results: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV 1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40–50% of initiators did not meet response criteria. Conclusions: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40–50% did not meet the response criteria.

Eosinophil-associated diseases (EADs) are a group of conditions in which eosinophils (a type of white blood cell) are thought to play a key role in the disease and how it develops. Some EADs are common, such as atopic dermatitis (also called eczema) and a subtype of asthma called eosinophilic asthma, while others are rare, such as hypereosinophilic syndrome (a condition in which a person has a very high number of eosinophils in both the blood and one or more organs). People with EADs face many problems related to their conditions. Symptoms such as severe abdominal pain, itch, or shortness of breath impact both the patient as well as their friends and family. Patients with EADs also experience delays to diagnosis and treatment as well as financial barriers. Healthcare professionals sometimes fail to recognize the complex set of symptoms that characterize an EAD, and this may cause delays in reaching a correct diagnosis. As a result, it may take longer for a patient to get the best care and the most effective treatments, which may contribute to poor health. The goal of this charter is to describe the key elements of good quality care, which all people with EADs deserve, as well as to present an action plan to improve health and overall well-being for people with EADs. Proposed use of this patient charter: The principles described in this charter (a written guide to achieve an outcome) show the core elements of quality care that people with EADs must receive. They also describe clear steps to reduce the burden on patients and their caregivers and to improve patient health outcomes. We urge healthcare professionals, hospitals, and policymakers around the world to adopt these principles quickly. By doing this, people with EADs will be more likely to receive an accurate and timely diagnosis and have access to quality care and treatment in the right setting., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone. Objective To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS. Methods This was a propensity score–matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models. Results We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]). Conclusions In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization., Background: Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS. Methods: This was a propensity score–matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models. Results: We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]). Conclusions: In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization.

Background Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. Results In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use., Background: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. Results: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Jonathan Corren,1 David J Jackson,2,3 Thomas B Casale,4 Larry Borish,5,6 Klaus F Rabe,7,8 William W Busse,9 Jorge F Maspero,10 Daniel J Jackson,11 Nadia Daizadeh,12 Arman Altincatal,12 Amr Radwan,13 Angela Khodzhayev,13 Michel Djandji,12 Juby A Jacob-Nara,12,14 Paul J Rowe,14 Yamo Deniz13 1David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2King’s College London, London, UK; 3Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 4Division of Allergy and Immunology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; 5Asthma and Allergic Disease Center, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 6Carter Immunology Center, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 7LungenClinic Grosshansdorf (Member of the German Center for Lung Research [DZL]), Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Grosshansdorf, Germany; 8Christian-Albrechts University (Member of the German Center for Lung Research [DZL]), Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Kiel, Germany; 9UW Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 10Fundación CIDEA, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 11University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 12Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA; 13Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY, USA; 14Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USACorrespondence: Jonathan Corren, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10780 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 280, Los Angeles, CA, 90025, USA, Email jcorren@ucla.eduPurpose: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukins-4/-13, key and central drivers of type 2 (T2) inflammation in multiple diseases. In phase 3 QUEST (NCT02414854), dupilumab vs placebo significantly reduced asthma exacerbation rates (AER) and improved pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma, with greater effects in p

Rhinoviruses and allergens, such as house dust mite are major agents responsible for asthma exacerbations. The influence of pre-existing airway inflammation on the infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is largely unknown. We analyse mechanisms of response to viral infection in experimental in vivo rhinovirus infection in healthy controls and patients with asthma, and in in vitro experiments with house dust mite, rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2 in human primary airway epithelium. Here, we show that rhinovirus infection in patients with asthma leads to an excessive RIG-I inflammasome activation, which diminishes its accessibility for type I/III interferon responses, leading to their early functional impairment, delayed resolution, prolonged viral clearance and unresolved inflammation in vitro and in vivo. Pre-exposure to house dust mite augments this phenomenon by inflammasome priming and auxiliary inhibition of early type I/III interferon responses. Prior infection with rhinovirus followed by SARS-CoV-2 infection augments RIG-I inflammasome activation and epithelial inflammation. Timely inhibition of the epithelial RIG-I inflammasome may lead to more efficient viral clearance and lower the burden of rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Introduction: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors. Methods: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015-2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018-2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups. Results: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti-IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti-IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization. Conclusion: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1 Claire McBrien,2 Bindhu Unni,3 Celeste M Porsbjerg,4 Mona Al-Ahmad,5 Christopher S Ambrose,6 Karin Dahl Assing,7 Anna von Bülow,4 John Busby,8 Borja G Cosio,9 J Mark FitzGerald,10 Esther Garcia Gil,11 Susanne Hansen,12 Liam G aHeaney,8 Mark Hew,13,14 David J Jackson,15,16 Maria Kallieri,17 Stelios Loukides,17 Njira L Lugogo,18 Andriana I Papaioannou,17 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,19 Wendy C Moore,20 Luis A Perez-de-Llano,21 Linda M Rasmussen,22 Johannes M Schmid,23 Salman Siddiqui,24 Marianna Alacqua,25 Trung N Tran,6 Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,26 John W Upham,27 Eileen Wang,28,29 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,3,30 Victoria A Carter,3,30 Isha Chaudhry,3,30 Neva Eleangovan,3,30 Ruth B Murray,3,30 Chris A Price,3,30 David B Price3,30,31 1UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 2Kingston Hospital, London, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 4Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 5Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait; 6AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 7Department of Respiratory Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; 8UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 9Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 10The Centre for Lung Health, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, UBC, Vancouver, Canada; 11AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 12Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 13Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; 14Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 15UK Severe Asthma Network andNational Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 16School of Immunology &amp