Search

Adult PAP patients experience similar #COVID19 rates to the general population, and high rates of hospitalisation and deaths, underscoring their vulnerability and the need for measures to prevent infection. The impact of iGM-CSF must be considered. https://bit.ly/3M0wKnZ.

BackgroundPatients 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsIn 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 ConclusionsIn 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.

Background Phenotypic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma are not well characterized in global, real-life severe asthma cohorts. Research Question What is the prevalence of eosinophilic and noneosinophilic phenotypes in the population with severe asthma, and can these phenotypes be differentiated by clinical and biomarker variables? Study Design and Methods This was an historical registry study. Adult patients with severe asthma and available blood eosinophil count (BEC) from 11 countries enrolled in the International Severe Asthma Registry (January 1, 2015-September 30, 2019) were categorized according to likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using a predefined gradient eosinophilic algorithm based on highest BEC, long-term oral corticosteroid use, elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide, nasal polyps, and adult-onset asthma. Demographic and clinical characteristics were defined at baseline (ie, 1 year before or closest to date of BEC). Results One thousand seven hundred sixteen patients with prospective data were included; 83.8% were identified as most likely (grade 3), 8.3% were identified as likely (grade 2), and 6.3% identified as least likely (grade 1) to have an eosinophilic phenotype, and 1.6% of patients showed a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Eosinophilic phenotype patients (ie, grades 2 or 3) showed later asthma onset (29.1 years vs 6.7 years; P Interpretation According to this multicomponent, consensus-driven, and evidence-based eosinophil gradient algorithm (using variables readily accessible in real life), the severe asthma eosinophilic phenotype was more prevalent than previously identified and was phenotypically distinct. This pragmatic gradient algorithm uses variables readily accessible in primary and specialist care, addressing inherent issues of phenotype heterogeneity and phenotype instability. Identification of treatable traits across phenotypes should improve therapeutic precision.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is already the third leading cause of death worldwide and simultaneously a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (also known as GOLD) committee, has been created in 1997 to increase the awareness regarding the burden of COPD. GOLD recommendations have been contributing to diagnosis, managementz, and therapy of COPD since 2001. Through these years, by reviewing published articles, GOLD aimed to provide state-of-the-art information not only for pulmonologists, but also for non-respiratory physicians, and to encourage research on COPD. From 2011, GOLD annual reports have changed the way of COPD evaluation from based entirely on spirometric parameters to more clinical indices, such as the assessment of symptoms and dyspnea alongside with exacerbations. Moreover, according to recent developments in pathophysiology of COPD, there is a trend in identifying new preclinical stages, contributing to prevention and early COPD treatment. In the field of therapeutic algorithms, changes turn to a more personalized approach. However, it is not clear in what extent this personalized disease management would be feasible and the real challenge for current recommendations is to include more patient characteristics such as comorbidities and multidimensional scores in disease evaluation.

IL-26 is a cytokine expressed by infiltrating pro-inflammatory IL-17-producing T cells in the tissues of patients with chronic lung inflammation. IL-26 induces the chemotactic response of human neutrophils to bacteria and other inflammatory stimuli. In recent years, the innovative properties of IL-26 have been described. Studies have shown that, as DNA is released from damaged cells, it binds to IL-26, which plays the role of a carrier molecule for extracellular DNA, further contributing to its binding to the site of inflammation. This mechanism of action indicates that IL-26 may serve both as a driver as well as a stimulus of the inflammatory process, leading to the installation of a noxious amplification loop and, eventually, persistent inflammation. IL-26 also demonstrates direct antimicrobial effects derived from its capability to create pores and disrupt bacterial membranes, as indicated by the presence of membrane blebs on the surface of the bacteria and cytosolic leakage pores in bacterial walls, produced in response to microbial stimuli in human airways by several different immune and structural cells. Surprisingly, while this particular cytokine induces the gathering of neutrophils in areas of infection, it also exhibits inhibitory and pro-inflammatory effects on airway epithelial and immune cells. These remarkable effects underline the necessity of a better understating of its biological behavior and its role in the pathophysiology and disease burden in several smoking-related airway inflammatory disorders, such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and chronic bronchitis. In this review, we aim to discuss the current role of IL-26 in the lung, with an emphasis on systemic inflammation in patients suffering from COPD and chronic bronchitis.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA) are common conditions that often coexist [Overlap syndrome (OS)]. OS has important implications in the diagnosis, treatment, and patient outcome of both disorders. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential to evaluate symptoms, impact of symptoms on activities of daily living, and treatment response. The present review aims to display the potential usefulness of PROs measurements (PROMs) regarding the initial evaluation and treatment of both conditions (COPD and OSA) in OS patients. More specifically, we review PROMs regarding symptoms, mental health indices and health-related quality of life in patients with OS. These PROMs have the potential to add value to clinical research and daily practice in certain aspects that are important to patients.

In the present prospective multicentre observational study, we evaluated the potential role of blood eosinophils on the outcomes of patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbations.Consecutive patients40 years with a previous COPD diagnosis were recruited. Blood eosinophils were measured on admission prior to the initiation of treatment and were evaluated in three groups (50, 50-149 and ≥150 cells/μL). Patients received standard care and were followed up for a year.A total of 388 patients were included (83.5% male, mean age 72 years). Patients with higher blood eosinophils had less dyspnoea (Borg scale), lower C-reactive protein (CRP) and higher PaOHigher blood eosinophils were associated with better outcomes in hospitalized COPD patients, further supporting their use as a prognostic biomarker.

Background and objectives: Administration of inhaled medication for asthma and COPD is often difficult and incorrect device use is associated with unfavorable outcomes. We aimed to evaluate device ...

Systemic inflammation may be the common denominator between COPD and type 2 diabetes and may explain the correlation in both diseases' development and progress. The aim of this prospective observational study is to examine the prognostic value of glycated hemoglobin levels (HbA1c) and HbA1c-adjusted glycemic variables (glycemic gap, stress hyperglycemia ratio και modified stress hyperglycemia ratio) in an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) as well as in COPD disease's morbidity and mortality during the following year. We evaluated patients hospitalized only for COPD exacerbations. Levels of HbA1c and HbA1c-adjusted glycemic variables were recorded upon admission. The study outcomes included duration of hospital stay, need for mechanical ventilation and exacerbation outcome. All subjects were followed up for one year. A total of 156 patients were included in the study (74.4% men, age [mean ±

Objective: The impact of severe infection from COVID-19 and the resulting need for life support in an ICU environment is a fact that caused immense pressure in healthcare systems around the globe. Accordingly, elderly people faced multiple challenges, especially after admission to the ICU. On this basis, we performed this study to assess the impact of age on COVID-19 mortality in critically ill patients. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, we collected data from 300 patients who were hospitalized in the ICU of a Greek respiratory hospital. We split patients into two age groups using a threshold of 65 years old. The primary objective of the study was the survival of patients in a follow up period of 60 days after their admission to the ICU. Secondary objectives were to determine whether mortality is affected by other factors, including sepsis and clinical and laboratory factors, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), APACHE II and d-dimers, CRP, etc. Results: The survival of all patients in the ICU was 75.7%. Those in the

Introduction: Efficient clinical scores predicting the outcome of severe COVID-19 pneumonia may play a pivotal role in patients’ management. The aim of this study was to assess the modified Severe COvid Prediction Estimate score (mSCOPE) index as a predictor of mortality in patients admitted to the ICU due to severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and methods: In this retrospective observational study, 268 critically ill COVID-19 patients were included. Demographic and laboratory characteristics, comorbidities, disease severity, and outcome were retrieved from the electronical medical files. The mSCOPE was also calculated. Results: An amount of 70 (26.1%) of patients died in the ICU. These patients had higher mSCOPE score compared to patients who survived (p < 0.001). mSCOPE correlated to disease severity (p < 0.001) and to the number and severity of comorbidities (p < 0.001). Furthermore, mSCOPE significantly correlated with days on mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001) and days of ICU stay (p = 0.003). mSCOPE was found to be an independent predictor of mortality (HR:1.219, 95% CI: 1.010–1.471, p = 0.039), with a value ≥ 6 predicting poor outcome with a sensitivity (95%CI) 88.6%, specificity 29.7%, a positive predictive value of 31.5%, and a negative predictive value of 87.7%. Conclusion: mSCOPE score could be proved useful in patients’ risk stratification, guiding clinical interventions in patients with severe COVID-19.

Pharmacological medications used for the treatment of COPD patients have increased significantly. Long-acting bronchodilators have been recognized as the mainstay of the treatment of stable COPD, while ICS are usually added in patients with COPD who experience exacerbations, despite bronchodilator treatment. In the latest years, several studies have been published showing the beneficial effect of adding ICS on dual bronchodilation in patients suffering from more severe disease comparing triple therapy with several therapeutic regiments including dual bronchodilation and providing a message that this triple therapy might be more appropriate for COPD patients. However, not all COPD patients have a desirable response to ICS treatment while long-term ICS use in COPD is associated with several side effects. In this report, we aimed to provide a review of the current knowledge on the importance of dual bronchodilation on COPD patients and to compare its use with triple therapy, by covering a wide spectrum of topics. Finally, we propose an algorithm on performing treatment step up from dual bronchodilation to triple therapy and step down from triple to double bronchodilation considering the current evidence.

In Sarcoidosis joints-muscles-bones (JMBs) localizations are of the least common. 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging revolutionized detection of JMBs involvement by adding metabolic activity information and al...

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common diseases worldwide. Although different guidelines regarding therapeutic algorithms exist, the most widely adopted approach is the one suggested by the Global Initiative in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease in which patients are stratified according to their dyspnea severity and their exacerbation history during the previous year. This combined assessment of COPD, which takes into consideration all aforementioned characteristics of COPD patients as well as the number of blood eosinophils, results in a proposed therapeutic algorithm which is complex and hard to memorize. This complexity is probable one of the causes that most health care professionals are not adherent to the guidelines when treating COPD patients. Here, we propose a simplified therapeutic algorithm for the treatment of COPD patients taking into consideration the current evidence on the use of bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids.

The term asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) has been used to identify a heterogeneous condition in which patients present with airflow limitation that is not completely reversible and clinical and inflammatory features of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). ACO diagnosis may be difficult in clinical practice, while controversy still exists regarding its definition, pathophysiology, and impact. Patients with ACO experience a greater disease burden compared to patients with asthma or COPD alone, but in contrast they show better response to inhaled corticosteroid treatment than other COPD phenotypes. Current management recommendations focus on defining specific and measurable treatable clinical traits, according to disease phenotypes and underlying biological mechanisms for every single patient. In this publication, we review the current knowledge on definition, pathophysiology, clinical characteristics, and management options of ACO.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there have been considerable concerns regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and outcomes in patients with severe asthma treated with biologics.To prospectively observe a cohort of severe asthmatics treated with biologics for the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and disease severity during the COVID-19 pandemic.Physicians from centers treating patients with severe asthma all over Greece provided demographic and medical data regarding their patients treated with biologics. Physicians were also asked to follow up patients during the pandemic and to perform a polymerase chain reaction test in case of a suspected SARS-Cov-2 infection.Among the 591 severe asthmatics (63.5% female) included in the study, 219 (37.1%) were treated with omalizumab, 358 (60.6%) with mepolizumab, and 14 (2.4%) with benralizumab. In total, 26 patients (4.4%) had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 (34.6%) of whom were admitted to the hospital because of severe COVID-19, and 1 required mechanical ventilation and died 19 days after admission. Of the 26 infected patients, 5 (19.2%) experienced asthma control deterioration, characterized as exacerbation that required treatment with systemic corticosteroids. The scheduled administration of the biological therapy was performed timely in all patients with the exception of 2, in whom it was postponed for 1 week according to their doctors' suggestion.Our study confirms that despite the initial concerns, SARS-CoV-2 infection is not more common in asthmatics treated with biologics compared with the general population, whereas the use of biologic treatments for severe asthma during the COVID-19 pandemic does not seem to be related to adverse outcomes from severe COVID-19.

Wenjia Chen,1 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,2 Trung N Tran,3 Ruth B Murray,4 Chong Boon Nigel Wong,1 Nasloon Ali,4,5 Cono Ariti,4,5 Esther Garcia Gil,6 Anthony Newell,5,7 Marianna Alacqua,8 Mona Al-Ahmad,9 Alan Altraja,10 Riyad Al-Lehebi,11,12 Mohit Bhutani,13 Leif Bjermer,14 Anne Sofie Bjerrum,15 Arnaud Bourdin,16 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,4,5 Anna von Bülow,17 John Busby,18 Giorgio Walter Canonica,19,20 Victoria Carter,4,5 George C Christoff,21 Borja G Cosio,22 Richard W Costello,23 J Mark FitzGerald,24 João A Fonseca,25 Kwang Ha Yoo,26 Liam G Heaney,27 Enrico Heffler,19,20 Mark Hew,28,29 Ole Hilberg,30 Flavia Hoyte,31,32 Takashi Iwanaga,33 David J Jackson,34,35 Rupert C Jones,36 Mariko Siyue Koh,37,38 Piotr Kuna,39 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,40 Sverre Lehmann,41 Lauri A Lehtimäki,42,43 Juntao Lyu,5,7 Bassam Mahboub,44,45 Jorge Maspero,46,47 Andrew N Menzies-Gow,48 Concetta Sirena,49 Nikolaos Papadopoulos,50,51 Andriana I Papaioannou,52 Luis Pérez de Llano,53,54 Diahn-Warng Perng,55,56 Matthew Peters,57 Paul E Pfeffer,58,59 Celeste M Porsbjerg,17 Todor A Popov,60 Chin Kook Rhee,61 Sundeep Salvi,62 Camille Taillé,63 Christian Taube,64 Carlos A Torres-Duque,65 Charlotte S Ulrik,66 Seung Won Ra,67 Eileen Wang,31,32 Michael E Wechsler,68 David B Price4,5,69 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 6AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 7Optimum Patient Care, Queensland, VIC, Australia; 8AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 9Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 10Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 11Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 12College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 13Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Alberta, Western Canada, AB, Canada; 14Department of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 15Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Jutland, Aarhus, Denmark; 16PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 17Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 19Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 20Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 21Medical University-Sofia, Faculty of Public Health, Sofia, Bulgaria; 22Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 23Department of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland; 24Department of Medicine, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 25Comunity Health, Information and Decision Sciences Department (MEDCIDS) & Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 26KonKuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, Seoul, Korea; 27Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 28Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 29Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 30Medical Department, Vejle University Hospital, Jutland, Vejle, Denmark; 31Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 32Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 33Center for General Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 34UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 35School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 36Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 37Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 38SingHealth Duke-NUS Lung Centre, Singapore, Singapore; 39Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy Medical University of &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, Poland; 40Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 41Section of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 42Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 43Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 44College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; 45Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 46Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 47University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 48Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 49Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI), Milano, Italy; 50Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 51Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 52 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 53Pneumology Service, Lucus Augusti University Hospital, EOXI Lugo, Lugo, Spain; 54Biodiscovery Research Group, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 55Division of Clinical Respiratory Physiology Chest Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 56COPD Assembly of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; 57Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 58Department of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; 59Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 60University Hospital ”sv. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, Bulgaria; 61Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 62Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 63Department of Respiratory Diseases, Bichat Hospital, AP-HP Nord-Université de Paris, Paris, France; 64Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 65CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 66Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 67Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea; 68Department of Medicine, NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 69Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06 Midview City, Singapore, Singapore, 573969, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: 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.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, real-world, treatment pattern, patient characteristics

Despite that COPD remains one of the most common respiratory diseases worldwide, it can be managed effectively with certain treatments and, more importantly, be prevented by the early implementation of various measures. The pathology and pathophysiology of this disease continue to be studied, with new pharmacological and invasive therapies emerging. In this consensus paper, the Working Group of the Hellenic Thoracic Society aimed to consolidate the up-to-date information and new advances in the treatment of COPD. Local and international data on its prevalence are presented, with revised strategies on the diagnostic approach and the evaluation of risk assessment and disease severity classification. Emphasis is placed on the management and therapy of patients with COPD, covering both common principles, specialized modalities, and algorithms to distinguish between home care and the need for hospitalization. Although pharmacological treatment is commonly recognized in COPD, an integrative approach of pulmonary rehabilitation, physical activity, patient education, and self-assessment should be encountered for a comprehensive treatment, prevention of exacerbations, and increased quality of life in patients.

Introduction The pathogenesis of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is highly complex and the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. Areas covered COPD has been traditionally associated with neutrophilic inflammation of the bronchi, but in the last decade studies have demonstrated that eosinophils may also migrate into the lower airways of patients with COPD and their increased numbers can be noticed during exacerbations as well as stable disease. In this review, we present clinical characteristics of eosinophilic COPD, as well as the role of eosinophils as a biomarker-guided therapy in COPD. A systematic research using database of Pubmed up to February of 2021 was performed. The terms we searched were: eosinophilic inflammation, COPD, COPD phenotypes, COPD exacerbations, corticosteroids in COPD, monoclonal antibodies in COPD. Expert opinion Blood eosinophil levels show strong potential as a prognostic and theragnostic biomarker in the clinical management of COPD being at the moment the most reliable biomarker. The lack of a certain cut-off value of blood eosinophils as guidance for treatment with ICS and biologic therapies and the uncertainty regarding the stability of eosinophilia and eosinophilic phenotype through the course of COPD remain as unmet dilemmas and problems.

To the editorWe have recently proposed a simplified approach of pharmacological treatment of stable COPD that has been previously published in this journal [1]. The most widely adopted approach reg...

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 & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 17 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 18Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 19Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 20Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 21Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain; 22Allergy Clinic, Department of Dermato-Allergology, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 23University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark; 24University of Leicester, Department of Respiratory Sciences & NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (Respiratory Theme), Leicester, UK; 25AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 26Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 27Diamantina Institute & PA-Southside Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; 28Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 29Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 30Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 31Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B PriceObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06 Midview City, Singapore, 573969 Tel +65 3105 1489Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: 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.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, prescribing, cohort study, management, international

Background Clinicians are increasingly recognizing severe asthma patients in whom biologics and other add-on therapies lead to dramatic improvement. Currently, there is no agreed-upon super-responder (SR) definition. Objective To survey severe asthma experts using a modified Delphi process, to develop an international consensus-based definition of a severe asthma SR. Methods The Delphi panel was composed of 81 participants (94% specialist pulmonologists or allergists) from 24 countries and consisted of three iterative online voting rounds. Consensus on individual items, whether acceptance or rejection, required at least 70% agreement by panel members. Results Consensus was achieved that the SR definition should be based on improvement across three or more domains assessed over 12 months. Major SR criteria included exacerbation elimination, a large improvement in asthma control (two or more times the minimal clinically important difference), and cessation of maintenance of oral steroids (or weaning to adrenal insufficiency). Minor SR criteria were composed of a 75% exacerbation reduction, having well-controlled asthma, and 500 mL or greater improvement in FEV1. The SR definition requires improvement in at least two major criteria. In the future, the SR definition should be expanded to incorporate quality of life measures, although current tools can be difficult to implement in a clinical setting and further research is needed. Conclusions This international consensus-based definition of severe asthma SRs is an important prerequisite for better understanding SR prevalence, predictive factors, and the mechanisms involved. Further research is needed to understand the patient's perspective and to measure quality of life more precisely in SRs.

Introduction: The age of asthma onset is often implicated in clinical manifestation, diagnosis, and management of the disease.Aim: To define demographic, clinical and functional features and inflam...

Sestrins (Sesns) are a family of highly conserved stress-inducible proteins and various stresses have been shown to strongly up-regulate them. Sestrin 2 (Sesn2) deficiency has been shown to partially suppress pulmonary emphysema. The aim of this study was to evaluate Sesn2 levels in COPD patients and its possible associations with the presence of emphysema and blood eosinophils. All patients underwent lung function testing and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the chest. The presence of emphysematous lesions in >15% of the pulmonary parenchyma was considered as significant emphysema. Sixty-seven patients were included in the study. 40/67 patients were characterized as having significant emphysema. Patients with significant emphysema had higher levels of Sesn2 (ng/ml) [median (IQR) 6.7 (2.7,10.3 vs 1.09 (0.9,1.9), ps = 0.87, ps = 0.27, p = 0.024). Negative correlations were observed between Sesn2 and either the % of blood eosinophils and/or the absolute blood eosinophil count (rs = -0.79, ps = -0.78, p

David B Price,1,2 Sen Yang,1 Simon Wan Yau Ming,1 Antony Hardjojo,1 Claudia Cabrera,3,4 Andriana I Papaioannou,5 Stelios Loukides,5 Vicky Kritikos,6 Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,6 Victoria Carter,7 Paul M Dorinsky8 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca R and D, Mölndal, Sweden; 4Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 52nd Respiratory Medicine Department, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece; 6Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Quality Use of Respiratory Medicines Group, School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Glebe, Australia; 7Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 8Pearl – a member of the AstraZeneca Group, Durham, NC, USABackground: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) as generated through the resistance of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) device is a critical patient-dependent maneuver impacting the success of DPI medication delivery. Despite its importance, it is not routinely measured in clinical practice. Little is currently known about the relationship, if any, between PIF through DPI devices, routine spirometry and disease outcomes.Aim: The aim of this study was to identify potential predictors of PIF for different DPIs from spirometric parameters and patient characteristics and explore the association between PIF and follow-up events.Patients and methods: A retrospective observational study at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation at Attikon hospital, Athens, Greece. Spirometry was performed using an Easy on-PC™ spirometer. PIF was measured through four DPI resistances using the In-Check™ DIAL. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between PIF through resistances and spirometric parameters obtained at discharge, comorbidities and demographic parameters.Results: Forty-seven COPD patients (mean [±SD], age 71[±9] years, 72% males, 51% current smokers) were included in this study. Overall, 85% and 15% were classified as GOLD (2017) groups D and C, respectively. Most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (70%) and cardiovascular disease (53%). In the final regression model, higher PIF was significantly associated with the following: higher FEV1 and% predicted peak expiratory flow (PEF) for Turbohaler® (R-squared value 0.374); higher FEV1 and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Aerolizer® (R-squared value 0.209) and higher FEV1, younger age and diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) for Diskus® (R-squared value 0.350). However, R-squared values for all three devices were weak (

Background: The efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma have been established in both randomized controlled trials and real-life studies. Objective: To evaluate the sustained effectiveness and safety of long-term treatment with omalizumab in a real-world setting. Methods: In this retrospective study, we included patients treated with omalizumab for at least 8 years in four asthma clinics in Greece. Pulmonary function, asthma control, oral corticosteroids (OCS) dose, and exacerbations were recorded before treatment, 6 months later, and annually thereafter. Adverse events were also recorded. Results: Forty-five patients (66.7% women), mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 55.3 ± 12.2 years, were included. The duration of treatment with omalizumab was 10.6 ± 1.2 years. The annual exacerbation rate decreased from 4.1 before omalizumab initiation to 1.1 after 1 year of treatment and remained low up to the 8th year of treatment (p < 0.001). From the 19 patients who were receiving OCS at baseline, 21.1% patients discontinued after 6 months, 47.4% were still on OCS after 4 years of therapy, and 31.6% were on OCS after 8 years. With regard to the OCS dose, 36.8% of the patients reduced the dose ≥ 50% after 6 months and 68.4% achieved 50% reduction after 2 years. The mean daily OCS dose before omalizumab initiation was 7.8 mg of prednisolone or the equivalent, reduced to 4.7 mg/day after 6 months, which reached 1.6 mg/day after 8 years (p < 0.001). Treatment with omalizumab resulted in significant improvements of asthma control and lung function. No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusion: In this real-life study, omalizumab resulted in significant and sustained improvements in asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and lung function, and had a steroid sparing effect and a good safety profile.

Introduction: MAB is a sensitive biomarker of cardiovascular risk, that is directly associated with cardiovascular events and mortality. Recent studies have evaluated the presence of MAB in patients with stable COPD or hospitalised for AECOPD. Objectives: To assess the impact of MAB in patients admitted for AECOPD and to detect possible associations of MAB with AECOPD outcomes and various COPD functional parameters. Methods: We evaluated prospectively 153 consequent patients, admitted for AECOPD in respiratory medicine departments of two University hospitals (Ioannina and Attikon). Upon admission demographic, clinical and laboratory values and COPD severity were assessed. Patients were evaluated monthly for one year, recording new AECOPD and death from any cause. Results: Patients with documented MAB (urine albumin/creatinine ratio g30 μg/mg) on admission had worse lung function (FEV1%) [median (IQR) 34 (25-44)% vs. 61 (53-74)%, pl0.001], higher mMRC [3 (2-3) vs. 1 (1-2), pl0.001], lower 6MWT [170 (139-243) vs. 360 (320-420), pl0.001] and more hospitalisation days [9 (6-11) vs. 4 (3-6), pl0.001]. MAB was also correlated with GOLD 2020 COPD stages (pl0.001). In multivariate regression analysis, significant predictors of hospitalisation duration were MAB [HR (95%CI) 2.034 (0.855-3.213)], FEV1 [-4.324 (-7.067- -3.135)] and presence of atrial fibrillation [0.988 (0.042-1.934)]. Twelve-month follow-up revealed that patients with MAB experienced more AECOPDs [3 (1.5-4.5) vs. 1 (0-3), pl0.001] and hospitalisations for AECOPD [1 (0-2) vs. 0 (0-1), pl0.001]. Conclusions: The presence of MAB upon admission for AECOPD was associated with the presence of more severe COPD and prolonged hospitalisation, as well as with higher rates of AECOPD and hospitalisations for AECOPD at 1-year follow-up.

Objectives: Serum uric acid (UA) and arterial lactate acid (LA) are markers of oxidative stress and tissue hypoxia that are present in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). The aim...

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease usually characterized by chronic airway inflammation, in which several phenotypes have been described, related to the age of onset, symptoms, inflammatory characteristics and treatment response. The identification of the inflammatory phenotype in asthma is very useful, since it allows for both the recognition of the asthmatic triggering factor as well as the optimization of treatment The paucigranulocytic phenotype of asthma (PGA) is characterized by sputum eosinophil levels