Search

Nasal polyps, T2 inflammation, Chronic Rhinosinusitis, Tezepelumab, biologics, asthma, eosinophils Targeting T2 inflammation in CRSwNP, and especially TSLP, may reverse structural changes such as nasal polyps through the "reprogramming" of structural cells and their interaction with the environment. Keywords: Chronic Rhinosinusitis; nasal polyps; T2 inflammation; Tezepelumab; biologics; asthma; eosinophils EN Chronic Rhinosinusitis nasal polyps T2 inflammation Tezepelumab biologics asthma eosinophils 821 825 5 07/31/23 20230801 NES 230801 1. Recent cases in the literature report the combination of biologics in severe asthma, either to reach a better control of asthma in poor controlled severe asthma patients or insufficiently controlled associated comorbidities such as CRSwNP. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Obesity is known to diminish lung volumes and worsen asthma. However, mechanistic understanding is lacking, especially as concerns small‐airway responsiveness. The objective of this study was therefore to compare small‐airway responsiveness, as represented by the change in expiratory:inspiratory mean lung density ratios (MLDe/i, as determined by computed tomography [CT]) throughout methacholine testing in obese versus non‐obese women with asthma. Methods: Thoracic CT was performed during methacholine bronchoconstriction challenges to produce standardized response curves (SRC: response parameter versus ln[1 + % PD20], where PD20 is the cumulative methacholine dose) for 31 asthma patients (n = 18 non‐obese and n = 13 obese patients). Mixed models evaluated obesity effects and interactions on SRCs while adjusting for age and bronchial morphology. Small airway responsiveness as represented by SRC slope was calculated for each third of the MLDe/i response and compared between groups. Results: Obesity‐associated effects observed during experimental bronchoconstriction included: (i) a significant baseline effect for forced expiratory volume in 1 second with lower values for the obese (73.11 ± 13.44) versus non‐obese (82.19 ± 8.78; p = 0.002) groups prior to methacholine testing and (ii) significantly higher responsiveness in small airways as estimated via differences in MLDe/i slopes (group×ln(1 + % PD20 interaction; p = 0.023). The latter were pinpointed to higher slopes in the obese group at the beginning 2/3 of SRCs (p = 0.004 and p = 0.021). Significant obesity effects (p = 0.035 and p = 0.008) indicating lower forced vital capacity and greater % change in MLDe/I (respectively) throughout methacholine testing, were also observed. Conclusion: In addition to baseline differences, small‐airway responsiveness (as represented by the change in MLDe/i) during methacholine challenge is greater in obese women with asthma as compared to the non‐obese. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The GINA Science Committee consists of highly skilled and experienced asthma experts, who continually review and synthesize scientific evidence to provide guidance on asthma prevention, diagnosis and management. Global initiative for asthma: 30 years of promoting evidence-based asthma care The GINA Board of Directors has a global geographic representation and draws its membership from leaders with an outstanding demonstrated commitment to asthma research, asthma clinical management, public health and patient advocacy. Asthma is a serious global health problem affecting all age groups. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics. Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥ 4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson's chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons. Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/μL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p< 0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p< 0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147). Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Discriminating asthma from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using medico-administrative databases is challenging but necessary for medico-economic analyses focusing on respiratory diseases. Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve dedicated algorithms.Objectives: To assess performance of different AI-based approaches to distinguish asthmatics from COPD patients in medico-administrative databases where the clinical diagnosis is absent. An "Asthma COPD Overlap" category was defined to further test whether AI can detect complexity.Methods: This study included 178,962 patients treated by two "R03" treatment prescriptions at least from January 2016 to December 2018 and managed by either a general practitioner and/or a pulmonologist participating in a permanent longitudinal observatory of prescription in ambulatory medicine (LPD). Clinical diagnoses are available in this database and were used as gold standards to develop diagnostic rules. Three types of AI approaches were explored using data restricted to demographics and treatment dispensations: multinomial regression, gradient boosting and recurrent neural networks (RNN). The best performing model (based on metric properties) was then applied to estimate the size of asthma and COPD populations based on a database (LRx) of treatment dispensations between July, 2018 and June, 2019.Results: The best models were obtained with the boosting approach and RNN, with an overall accuracy of 68%. Performance metrics were better for asthma than COPD. Based on LRx data, the extrapolated numbers of patients treated for asthma and COPD in France were 3.7 and 1.2 million, respectively. Asthma patients were younger than COPD patients (mean, 49.9 vs. 72.1 years); COPD occurred mostly in men (68%) compared to asthma (33%).Conclusion: AI can provide models with acceptable accuracy to distinguish between asthma, ACO and COPD in medico-administrative databases where the clinical diagnosis is absent. Deep learning and machine learning (RNN) had similar performances in this regard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) have long been a mainstay of treatment for asthma exacerbations and chronic severe asthma. However, it is increasingly recognized that both long-term and short-term OCS use are directly associated with a wide range of serious adverse effects, and as such OCS-sparing treatment alternatives are now widely recommended for patients with severe asthma. While several international guidelines recommend these treatments, guidance on OCS tapering, and which patients are most likely to tolerate OCS reduction and/or discontinuation, is still lacking. Several biologics have demonstrated efficacy in patients with OCS-dependent asthma. One OCS-sparing treatment is the anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. In addition to improved exacerbation rates, asthma control, quality of life, and lung function among patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, mepolizumab also has an OCS-sparing effect, which has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies. Both physicians and patients express concerns about the adverse effects of OCS, and additional data from the randomized, controlled SIRIUS trial (NCT01691508) highlight the high level of concern among patients regarding OCS-related burden. In this article, we discuss current guidance on OCS-sparing strategies for patients with severe asthma, provide a summary of the available evidence of the OCS-sparing effect of mepolizumab, and highlight patient and physician perspectives on the use of OCS and OCS-sparing treatments in severe asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials have shown treatment benefits of dupilumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma for up to 1 year. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, as data for extended treatment with dupilumab beyond 1 year are not available. TRAVERSE was an open-label extension study in 362 hospitals and clinical centres across 27 countries that assessed the safety and efficacy of dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks up to 96 weeks in adults and adolescents (aged 12–84 years) with moderate-to-severe or oral-corticosteroid-dependent severe asthma who had completed a previous dupilumab asthma study (phase 2A EXPEDITION, phase 2B DRI [P2b], phase 3 QUEST, or VENTURE). The primary endpoint was the number and percentage of patients with any treatment-emergent adverse events. Secondary endpoints included annualised exacerbation rate (AER) over the treatment period and change from parent study baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 , the five-item asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5), the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ), type 2 biomarkers (blood eosinophils and serum total IgE), and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). Statistical analyses were descriptive. We report safety in all enrolled patients, and efficacy in patients with non-oral-corticosteroid-dependent asthma and in subgroups, including patients with a type 2 inflammatory phenotype who received 148 weeks of treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02134028. Between Aug 5, 2014, and Oct 11, 2019, of 2302 patients assessed for eligibility, 2282 adults and adolescents were enrolled (median age 50 years, 62·1% female and 37·9% male). Safety during TRAVERSE was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. The proportion of patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events throughout the study duration was similar to that observed in the parent studies and ranged from 76·3% to 94·7%. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (17·5–25·9%), injection-site erythema (2·2–23·4%), and bronchitis (9·3–19·0%). Serious asthma exacerbations (0·5–3·6%) and pneumonia (0·7–2·7%) were the most frequently reported serious adverse events. There were four treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death. Efficacy during TRAVERSE was also consistent with the results of parent studies. In patients who were non-oral-corticosteroid-dependent, AER remained low (0·277–0·327) across parent study and treatment groups, pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 improvements were sustained to the end of treatment at week 96 (mean changes from parent study baseline ranged from 0·22 L [SD 0·44] to 0·33 L [0·44] across parent study and treatment groups), and improvements in ACQ-5 and AQLQ scores were sustained to the last timepoint assessed at week 48. Rapid improvements were observed in pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 and sustained improvements were seen in all outcome measures for patients given dupilumab who previously received placebo in parent studies; further improvements in AER, asthma control, and health-related quality of life were observed in patients who continued receiving dupilumab. Blood eosinophils and serum total IgE decreased progressively. ADA status had no effect on safety or efficacy. In the subgroup of patients with a type 2 inflammatory phenotype followed-up for 148 weeks, AER decreased progressively, and initial lung function improvements were sustained over 148 weeks. Data show that safety and efficacy of dupilumab in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe asthma are sustained when treatment is extended up to 148 weeks. These findings therefore support the long-term use of dupilumab in this patient population. Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current practices for assessing response to anti-interleukin 5/R treatment in severe asthma patients are heterogeneous. The objective of this study was to achieve an expert consensus defining failure criteria for anti-interleukin 5/R treatment in severe asthma patients. Methods: Experts were invited to a 5-round Delphi exercise if they were pulmonologists managing ⩾30 patients at a nationally recognized severe asthma expert centre. Following two rounds of statement-generating brainstorming, the expert panel ranked each statement according to a 5-point Likert-type scale during three additional rounds. Positive consensus was considered achieved when ⩾80% of experts agreed with a statement with >50% strong agreement and <15% disagreement. Results: Twenty experts participated in the study. All experts agreed that predefined treatment goals defining effectiveness should be personalized during shared decision making via a patient contract. Treatment failure was defined as (1) absence of a reduction in exacerbation rates by ⩾25% or (2) absence of a reduction in oral corticosteroid therapy by ⩾25% of the initial dosage or (3) occurrence of emergency room visits or hospitalizations after 6 months of treatment. Treatment failure should result in discontinuation. For partial responders, treatment discontinuation was not recommended unless an alternative from another therapeutic class exists and should be discussed in a multidisciplinary consultation. Conclusion: The present study provides objective criteria for anti IL5 or IL5R failure in severe asthma and suggests consensus based guidelines for prescription, evaluation and discontinuation decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since their introduction many decades ago, systemic corticosteroids have become a mainstay treatment for asthma. Despite being a highly effective therapy, corticosteroids can cause significant adverse effects in patients. This results in a "double hit" for some patients as they suffer the burden of disease as well as the burden of treatment-induced morbidity. This article aims to raise awareness of the potential, harmful side effects of prolonged or repeated exposure to systemic corticosteroids in asthma. It also highlights the importance of referral of the appropriate patients with asthma from primary care for specialist assessment once other considerations such as adherence, inhaler technique and co-morbidity have been evaluated. We propose a simple decision step that may help busy primary care physicians and general practitioners to identify patients who could benefit from specialist assessment. Our decision step suggests that a patient with asthma should be reviewed at least once by an asthma specialist if he/she (i) has received ≥2 courses of oral corticosteroids in the previous year; asthma remains uncontrolled despite good adherence and inhaler technique; or (ii) has attended an emergency department or was hospitalized for asthma care. Such referral could facilitate wider access to diagnostic tools, in-depth assessment of confounding comorbidities, and non-corticosteroid-based therapies as needed, which may be unavailable in primary practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are frequently used as relievers for acute asthma and controllers for severe asthma. However, the relief offered by OCS is counterbalanced by adverse effects. We aimed to describe how patients perceive OCS treatment benefits and risks, and how this could affect their adherence to the treatment. Patients aged ≥18 years with asthma registered with Carenity, an online patient community, were invited to respond to a questionnaire containing 35 closed and 3 open questions to assess their asthma and perceptions of OCS. 268/300 respondents were receiving or had received OCS for asthma (58 for long-term use and 107 for short-term use). The mean age at diagnosis was 21.3 years. 66% had uncontrolled asthma (GINA control score 3 or 4). Although 42% perceived OCS to be efficacious, 46% mentioned adverse effects. Respondents were mostly satisfied with OCS (median = 7.0/10), particularly for efficacy (median = 8.0/10). Respondents reported having strategies to avoid OCS, mainly because of adverse effects. 26% of respondents had previously reduced or stopped OCS; this proportion was 22% for short-term OCS users and 36% for long-term users. 15% of the respondents not receiving long-term OCS would take the treatment without doing anything else if long-term OCS were prescribed; 42% would seek an alternative treatment. OCS for asthma is perceived efficient but associated with adverse effects. Patients seek alternative treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)‐4/IL‐13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation. In phase 2b (NCT01854047) and phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST (NCT02414854), add‐on dupilumab 200/300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) reduced severe exacerbations, improved prebronchodilator (pre‐BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and quality of life measures, and it was generally well tolerated in patients with uncontrolled, persistent (phase 2b), or moderate‐to‐severe (phase 3) asthma. Methods: In patients on high‐dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with type 2‐high asthma (subgroups including baseline blood eosinophils ≥150/300 cells/µL and/or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] ≥25 ppb), annualized severe exacerbation rates over the treatment period, changes from baseline in pre‐BD FEV1 and asthma control (5‐item asthma control questionnaire [ACQ‐5]) were analyzed. Results: In high‐dose ICS type 2‐high subgroups, dupilumab 200/300 mg q2w vs placebo in the phase 2b (24 weeks) and phase 3 (52 weeks) studies significantly reduced severe exacerbations by 55%‐69%/57%‐60% (all P<.05) and 53%‐69%/48%‐66% (all P <.001), respectively, except in patients with ≥ 300 eosinophils/µL in phase 2b study (24%/50% (P =.52/0.15). Across subgroups, pre‐BD FEV1 improved by 0.18‐0.22 L/0.19‐0.24 L (all P <.05) and 0.23‐0.36 L/0.15‐0.25 L (all P <.01) and ACQ‐5 scores were reduced by 0.46‐0.55/0.47‐0.85 (all P <.05) and 0.38‐0.50/0.24‐0.30 (all P <.05), respectively, except dupilumab 200 mg q2w in phase 2b in patients with FeNO ≥ 25 ppb (0.41; P =.09). Dupilumab was also effective in patients taking medium‐dose ICS. Conclusion: Dupilumab significantly reduced severe exacerbations and improved lung function and asthma control in patients with type 2‐high asthma on high‐dose ICS at baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic corticosteroid use to manage uncontrolled asthma and its associated healthcare burden may account for important health-related adverse effects. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the real-world extent and burden of systemic corticosteroid use in asthma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify English-language articles published in 2010-2017, using search terms for asthma with keywords for oral corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids. Observational studies, prescription database analyses, economic analyses, and surveys on oral/systemic corticosteroid use in children (>5 yr old), adolescents (12-17 yr old), and adults with asthma were included. We identified and reviewed 387 full-text articles, and our review included data from 139 studies. The included studies were conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia. Overall, oral/systemic corticosteroids were commonly used for asthma management and were more frequently used in patients with severe asthma than in those with milder disease. Long-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use was, in general, less frequent than short-term use. Compared with no use, long-term and repeated short-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use were associated with an increased risk of acute and chronic adverse events, even when doses were comparatively low. Greater oral/systemic corticosteroid exposure was also associated with increased costs and healthcare resource use. This review provides a comprehensive overview of oral/systemic corticosteroid use and associated adverse events for patients with all degrees of asthma severity and exposure duration. We report that oral/systemic corticosteroid use is prevalent in asthma management, and the risks of acute and chronic complications increase with the cumulative oral corticosteroid dosage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study on the association of the presence of pathologic features of airway remodeling in patients with asthma and steroid responsiveness in the short term. The study involves 63 patients with chronic airflow impairment and severe asthma. The result shows that 38 patients had steroid responsiveness of more than 15 percent and a thinner reticular basement membrane (RBM) at the biopsy level, as compared with nonsteroid responsive patients.

Background Methods Results Conclusions 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.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 (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super‐response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well‐controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day.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% FEV1 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.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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]