Search

Background: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a bronchoscopic procedure for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, but randomized controlled studies of its efficacy in severe asthma with frequent exacerbations are lacking. The current aim was to assess BT efficacy in this patient population., Methods: Thirty patients with asthma (GINA 5) who had experienced at least four severe exacerbations in the preceding year were randomized to BT (n = 15) or control groups (n = 15). All patients had four follow-up visits over the following 15 months, corresponding to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the last procedure for the BT group. The primary outcome was number of exacerbations at 15 months after inclusion (i.e. 12 months after bronchial thermoplasty)., Results: All but three patients had received an asthma biologic without receiving benefit. In the year preceding enrollment, patients in the BT group had an average of five exacerbations, compared with six among controls. For patients in the BT group, oral steroid intake was 9.3 mg/d, compared with 11.0 mg/d among controls. The BT group had 1.58 fewer severe exacerbations (mean, 6.09) compared with controls (mean, 8.28) in the 12-month period after the therapy (p = 0.047). Oral steroid intake during follow-up after BT was significantly lower in the BT group (ratio vs controls: 0.61; p = 0.0002). Quality-of-life measures between inclusion and the last visit were significantly improved in the BT group, but not among controls. Few mild to moderate adverse events were reported, and all were controlled within days., Conclusion: In patients with severe asthma and frequent severe exacerbations, BT significantly decreased the rate of severe exacerbations and oral steroid intake and led to improved quality of life during the 15 months after inclusion. BT appears to offer a therapeutic option for severe asthma with frequent exacerbations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Pr F. De Blay reports financial support was provided by ADIRAL. Pr F. De Blay reports financial support was provided by SOS Oxygène. Pr F. De Blay reports financial support was provided by France Oxygen. Pr F. De Blay reports financial support was provided by Elivie SAS. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

The environment of an asthmatic patient can contain numerous sources of pollutants that degrade the quality of indoor air and have major repercussions on the occurrence and control of asthma. Assessment and improvement of the quality of indoor air should be assigned a major role in pneumology and allergology consultations. Characterization of an asthmatic's environment entails a search for biological pollutants with mite allergens, mildew, and allergens resulting from the proximity of pets. It is important to evaluate the chemical pollution represented by exposure to volatile organic compounds, which are increasingly present in our lodgings. Active or second-hand smoking must in all circumstances be sought out and quantified. Assessment of the environment is mediated by several methods, of which the application depends not only on the pollutant sought out, but also on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), which has an essential role in quantification of biological pollutants. Attempts at expulsion of the different indoor environment pollutants is mediated by indoor environment advisors, whose efforts are aimed at obtaining reliable evaluation and control of indoor air. Implemented as a form of tertiary prevention, their methods are conducive to improved asthma control, in adults as well as children., (Copyright © 2023 SPLF. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab) has demonstrated efficacy in severe atopic asthma. However, few studies have assessed its efficacy in non-atopic and even less in T2-low severe asthma. The objective was to determinate the omalizumab response according to atopic status., Methods: This retrospective, real-world study was performed in the Chest Diseases Department of Strasbourg University Hospital from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2017. The response to omalizumab was assessed in 139 patients 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment and compared to data collected prior to omalizumab initiation., Results: Forty-four patients (31.7%) had severe non-atopic asthma and 95 (68.3%) had a severe atopic asthma. In the non-atopic group, omalizumab significantly reduced the severe exacerbation rate by 44% (95% CI 18-64%, p  < 0.05), 43% (CI 95% 20-60%, p  < 0.05), and 54% (CI 95% 36-67%, p  < 0.05), at 4, 6 and 12 months, respectively. A trend toward improvement in FEV1, asthma control and oral corticosteroid use was also observed. These results were not significantly different from those obtained in atopic asthmatics except a more effective oral corticosteroid sparing in atopic group ( p  < 0.05). Similar reduction of severe exacerbation rates were observed in T2-low asthma subgroup (non-atopic, non-eosinophilic)., Conclusion: Omalizumab was effective in severe asthma, regardless of atopic status.

Background: Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma with type 2 inflammation. Although such treatments are very effective in reducing exacerbation and the dose of oral steroids, little is known about the persistence of symptoms in severe asthma patients treated with biologics., Purpose: We aim to describe asthma control and healthcare consumption of severe asthma patients treated with biologics., Design: The Second Souffle study is a real-life prospective observational study endorsed by the Clinical Research Initiative in Severe Asthma: a Lever for Innovation & Science Network., Methods: Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of severe asthma for at least 12 months' duration were enrolled in the study. A self-administered questionnaire including the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and a compliance evaluation test was given to the patients. Healthcare consumption within 12 months prior to enrolment was documented. In patients receiving biologics, doctors indicated whether the patients were biologic responders or non-responders., Results: The characteristics of 431 patients with severe asthma were analysed. Among them, 409 patients (94.9%) presented asthma with type 2 inflammation (T2 high) profile, and 297 (72.6%) patients with a T2 high phenotype were treated with a biologic. Physicians estimated that 88.2% of patients receiving biologics were responders. However, asthma control was only achieved in 25.3% of those patients (ACQ > 0.75). A high proportion of patients (77.8%) identified as responders to biologics were not controlled according to the ACQ score. About 50% of patients continue to use oral corticosteroids either daily (25.2%) or more than three times a year for at least three consecutive days (25.6%). Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea syndrome (OSA) were identified as independent factors associated with uncontrolled asthma., Conclusion: Although a high proportion of severe asthma patients respond to biologics, only 25.3% have controlled asthma. GERD and OSA are independent factors of uncontrolled asthma.

Background: Viral infections are known to exacerbate asthma in adults. Previous studies have found few patients with asthma among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia cases. However, the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe asthma exacerbation is not known., Objective: To assess the frequency of asthma exacerbation in patients with asthma hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and compare symptoms and laboratory and radiological findings in patients with and without asthma with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia., Methods: We included 106 patients between March 4 and April 6, 2020, who were hospitalized in the Chest Diseases Department of Strasbourg University Hospital; 23 had asthma. To assess the patients' asthma status, 3 periods were defined: the last month before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms (p1), prehospitalization (p2), and during hospitalization (p3). Severe asthma exacerbations were defined according to Global INitiative for Asthma guidelines during p1 and p2. During p3, we defined severe asthma deterioration as the onset of breathlessness and wheezing requiring systemic corticosteroids and inhaled β2 agonist., Results: We found no significant difference between patients with and without asthma in terms of severity (length of stay, maximal oxygen flow needed, noninvasive ventilation requirement, and intensive care unit transfer); 52.2% of the patients with asthma had Global INitiative for Asthma step 1 asthma. One patient had a severe exacerbation during p1, 2 patients during p2, and 5 patients were treated with systemic corticosteroids and inhaled β2 agonist during p3., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that patients with asthma appeared not to be at risk for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia did not induce severe asthma exacerbation., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Allergy is a hypersensitivity reaction induced by immunological mechanisms. In asthma, allergy has a complex role and is usually IgE mediated. Allergy must be evaluated during the work up but evidence of IgE sensitivity does not mean that allergens play a role in the pathophysiology of the disease. The clinical relevance of the sensitivity has to be considered. This paper describes current available tools to screen for IgE sensitivity, allergen exposure and their role in asthma., (Copyright © 2020 SPLF. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Environmental Exposure Chamber (EEC) should have standardized and controlled allergenic and non-allergenic exposures to perform reproducible clinical studies. The aim was to demonstrate that mite exposure in the Alyatec ® EEC could induce early (EAR) and/or late asthmatic reactions (LAR) in at least 60% of subjects allergic to mite. Methods: The EEC has a volume of 147-m 3 with 20 seats. The nebulized particle number, airborne Der p1, endotoxins, and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations were measured. Twenty-four asthmatics allergic to mite were randomly exposed to 15, 25, and 46 ng/m 3 Der p1. Specificity was assessed in not mite-sensitized asthmatics. Results: No significant endotoxin or VOC contamination was measured. The mean inter-assay CVs were 12.5% for the airborne particle number and 28.7% for airborne Der p1 concentrations. For the three Der p1 concentrations, at least 88% of the subjects developed EAR and/or LAR, and at least 46% developed a dual response. No reaction occurred with placebo or in the control group. No severe bronchial reaction occurred. Conclusions: The Alyatec ® EEC demonstrated a tight control of allergenic and non-allergenic exposures. The EEC was clinically validated, with airborne Der p1 levels close to levels found in natural settings.

Background: The clinical efficacy of controlling environmental allergens as a component of allergic asthma treatment remains controversial. Multifaceted allergen reductions appeared to be the most efficient methods. However, they require home visits with indoor technicians., Objective: To examine the characteristics of indoor environments that might be related to symptoms of children and adult patients with mite allergic rhinitis and/or asthma., Methods: We included 315 patients allergic to house dust mites with rhinitis and/or asthma who had been visited at home by 2 medical indoor environment counselors (MIECs) from the Strasbourg University Hospital between January 2007 and June 2015. In a cluster analysis, we analyzed 42 characteristics of respiratory symptoms, dwelling characteristics, and indoor pollutants in this population., Results: Three clusters were defined among the patients. Cluster 1 included 55 patients, all with rhinitis, 32% with asthma, and all living in an urban area. Clusters 2 and 3 included 86 and 174 patients, respectively. The important factors in these 2 clusters were asthma incidence and exposure to different indoor pollutants, such as indoor perfumes, cleaning products, and tobacco smoke., Conclusion: Our results underlined the variability of indoor environments and the importance of MIEC home visits to investigate individual patient environments and propose an appropriate avoidance management plan. Our results showed that sensitization to mite and exposure to indoor chemical pollutants were associated with severe asthma., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rhinitis and asthma are common diseases that are strongly linked from both the epidemiological and patho-physiological point of view. A precise aetiological diagnosis is required in order to optimize treatment. Nasal provocation tests (NPT) determine precisely the role of the allergen in the initiation of the symptoms of rhinitis particularly when the history does not produce convincing evidence of the clinical relevance of an allergen. It may also have important consequences for the choice of an allergenic immunotherapy. NPT are not standardized but simple methods based on international recommendations provide us with good diagnostic accuracy. In this paper, we will discuss the practical aspects of NPT as well as the clinical or research situations where they may be useful for the respiratory physician., (Copyright © 2018 SPLF. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)