Search

Background: Type 2 low-severe asthma phenotype is often a result of corticosteroid-overtreated type 2 disease owing to persistent symptoms, often unrelated to asthma and unlikely to respond to high-dose corticosteroid treatment., Objective: This study aimed to characterize patients with severe asthma with low eosinophil counts (<300 cells/μL) and describe their disease burden and treatment across health care settings in the United Kingdom., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients with severe asthma using linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum-Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) data indexed patients according to the latest blood eosinophil count (BEC). Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, outcomes, and health care resource use were described by baseline BEC (≤150 and >150 to <300 cells/μL)., Results: Analysis included 701 (CPRD-HES) and 1,546 (UKSAR) patients; 60.5% and 59.4% had BECs 150 cells/μL or less at baseline, respectively. Across BEC groups, the proportion with uncontrolled asthma (two or more exacerbations) at follow-up (12 months after the index) was 5.4% in CPRD-HES and 45.2% in UKSAR. Maintenance oral corticosteroid use remained high across BEC groups (CPRD-HES: 29.4%; UKSAR: 51.7%), symptom control remained poor (>200 μg short-acting β 2 agonist or >500 μg terbutaline/d in CPRD-HES: 48.8%; median Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 score in UKSAR: 2.0 [range, 1.0-3.3]). Health care resource use was similar across BEC groups., Conclusions: Most patients managed in primary care experienced infrequent exacerbations, whereas UKSAR patients had frequent exacerbations. Large proportions of both patient groups had poor symptom control and continued to receive high levels of maintenance oral corticosteroids, increasing the risk of corticosteroid-induced morbidity. These data highlight the need for rigorous assessment of underlying disease pathology to guide appropriate treatment., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Novel biologic therapies have revolutionised the management of severe asthma with more ambitious treatment aims. Here we analyse the definition of clinical remission as a suggested treatment goal and consider the characteristics associated with clinical remission in a large, real-world severe asthma cohort., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of severe asthma patients registered in the UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) who met strict national access criteria for biologics. Patients had a pre-biologics baseline assessment and annual review. The primary definition of clinical remission applied included Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 <1.5 and no oral corticosteroids for disease control and forced expiratory volume in 1 s above lower limit of normal or no more than 100 mL less than baseline., Results: 18.3% of patients achieved the primary definition of remission. The adjusted odds of remission on biologic therapy were 7.44 (95% CI 1.73-31.95)-fold higher in patients with type 2 (T2)-high biomarkers. The adjusted odds of remission were lower in patients who were female (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.93), obese (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.65) or had ACQ-5 ≥1.5 (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12-0.31) pre-biologic therapy. The likelihood of remission reduced by 14% (95% CI 0.76-0.97) for every 10-year increase in disease duration. 12-21% of the cohort attained clinical remission depending on the definition applied; most of those who did not achieve remission failed to meet multiple criteria., Conclusions: 18.3% of patients achieved the primary definition of clinical remission. Remission was more likely in T2-high biomarker patients with shorter duration of disease and less comorbidity. Further research on the optimum time to commence biologics in severe asthma is required., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) does not receive any monetary benefits or benefits-in-kind from any pharmaceutical entity; UKSAR does make limited data contributions to the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) and the European Respiratory Society Clinical Research Collaborative (SHARP), which do receive pharmaceutical funding. P.J. McDowell reports speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline and scientific meeting support from Chiesi. R. McDowell and M. Patel have no conflicts of interest to declare. M.C. Eastwood reports support to attend meetings from GlaxoSmithKline. J. Busby reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Nuvoair. P.H. Patel received advisory board fees and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Sanofi. D.J. Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Regeneron. A. Mansur declares personal and to institution payment for talks, advisory board meetings and sponsorship to attend conferences from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim; he also declares research grants from GlaxoSmithKline. H. Burhan reports fees for advisory board meetings from AstraZeneca and Novartis, honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK and Sanofi, and support for attending conferences from AstraZeneca, Chiesi and GSK. S. Doe has participated on advisory boards for Vertex, Gilead and Novartis, and has received support for travel to meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Teva; Sanofi, Chiesi and Forest, and fees for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. R. Chaudhuri has received lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Chiesi, Sanofi and Novartis, honoraria for advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Chiesi, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, and a research grant (paid to institute) from AstraZeneca for a UK multicentre study. R. Gore has received fees for lecturing from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline. J.W. Dodd declares he has received honoraria for participating in advisory boards and given lectures at meetings supported by GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, AstraZeneca, Fisher & Paykel and Aerogen; he has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from Chiesi; he has also taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Chiesi, for which his institution received remuneration; his institution has received funding for research from the MRC, NIHR, SBRI, NHSx, Templeton Foundation and Southmead Hospital research charity. T. Brown has received fees as an external expert from AstraZeneca, speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Teva, Novartis and Chiesi, honoraria for advisory board attendance from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Teva, and sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Chiesi and Napp Pharmaceuticals. D. Subramanian is part of the AstraZeneca Precision National Working group and has received speaker fees from Chiesi. L.G. Heaney is academic lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused unprecedented disruption to global healthcare delivery. In England, the majority of elective surgery was postponed or cancelled to increase intensive care capacity. Our unit instituted the 'RM Partners Cancer Hub' at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, to deliver ongoing cancer surgery in a 'COVID-lite' setting. This article describes the operational set-up and outcomes for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer resections performed during this period., Methods: From April 2020 to April 2021, the Royal Marsden Hospital formed the RM Partners Cancer Hub. This approach was designed to coordinate resources and provide as much oncological treatment as feasible for patients across the RM Partners West London Cancer Alliance. A UGI surgical case prioritisation strategy, along with strict infection control pathways and pre-operative screening protocols, was adopted., Results: A total of 231 patients underwent surgery for confirmed or suspected UGI cancer during the RM Partners Cancer Hub, with 213 completed resections and combined 90-day mortality rate of 3.5%. Good short-term survival outcomes were demonstrated with 2-year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for oesophageal (70.8% and 72.9%), gastric (66.7% and 83.3%) and pancreatic cancer resections (68.0% and 88.0%). One patient who developed perioperative COVID-19 during the RM Partners Cancer Hub operation made a full recovery with no lasting clinical sequelae., Conclusion: Our experience demonstrates that the RM Partners Cancer Hub approach is a safe strategy for continuing upper gastrointestinal (GI) resectional surgery during future periods of healthcare service disruption., (© 2022. Crown.)