Search

Background: Anti-type 2 (T2) biologic therapies (biologics) improve exacerbation rates, lung function, and asthma-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with severe T2 asthma. However, studies comparing different biologics are lacking. We evaluated the QoL in patients with severe asthma comprehensively and compare the efficacy of different T2-directed biologics using QoL questionnaires. Methods: We compared the QoL between severe and mild-to-moderate asthma and between severe asthma with and without biologics treatment. Data of mild-to-moderate were extracted from the Cohort for Reality and Evolution of Adult Asthma in Korea, and data of severe asthma were collected from the Precision Medicine Intervention in Severe Asthma. We included 183 patients with severe asthma treated with T2 biologics or conventional therapy between April 2020 and May 2021 and assessed QoL of them using the Questionnaire for Adult Korean Asthmatics (QLQAKA), Severe Asthma Questionnaire (SAQ), and EuroQoL-5Dimensions (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6 months. Results: The EQ-5D index (0.803) of severe asthma was lower than that of other chronic diseases representing a worse QoL. The scores for all questions of QLQAKA, except “cough,” were lower (less control) in the severe asthma group than in the mild-to-moderate asthma group at baseline and 6 months (P 0.05). Conclusion: QoL was worse in severe asthma than in mild-to-moderate asthma and other chronic diseases. T2 biologics equally improved QoL in patients with severe asthma.

Background: Exposure to allergens or irritants in the workplace may affect asthma control and the quality of life (QoL) of patients with asthma. Objective: To examine the prevalence and characteristics of work-related asthma (WRA) in adult patients with severe asthma. Methods: We analyzed data from the Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR), which is a nationwide multicenter observational study on severe asthma in Korea. Severe asthma was defined according to the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines. WRA was identified on the basis of asthma symptom aggravation at the workplace, as indicated by responses to a structured questionnaire. We compared the demographic and clinical characteristics and QoL between adult patients with severe asthma and WRA and those without WRA. Results: Among 364 patients with severe asthma who were employed at the time of enrollment, 65 (17.9%) had WRA. There were no significant differences in age, sex, obesity, or smoking history between the WRA and non-WRA groups. However, individuals with WRA exhibited a higher prevalence of anxiety (7.7% vs 2.4%, P = 0.046) and depression (12.3% vs 3.7%, P = 0.010) than those without. The levels of asthma control, lung function, and frequency of asthma exacerbations were similar between the two groups, but patients with WRA reported lower QoL, as determined by the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adult Korean Asthmatics (56.6 ± 14.6 vs. 63.5 ± 13.9, P

Background: Despite the increasing use of biologics in severe asthma, there is limited research on their use in asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap (ACO). We compared real-world treatment responses to biologics in ACO and asthma. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study using data from the Precision Medicine Intervention in Severe Asthma (PRISM). ACO was defined as post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) 10 pack-years. Physicians selected biologics (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab) based on each United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval criteria. Results: After six-month treatment with biologics, both patients with ACO (N = 13) and asthma (N = 81) showed positive responses in FEV1 (10.69 ± 17.17 vs. 11.25 ± 12.87 %, P = 0.652), Asthma Control Test score (3.33 ± 5.47 vs. 5.39 ± 5.42, P = 0.290), oral corticosteroid use (−117.50 ± 94.38 vs. −115.06 ± 456.85 mg, P = 0.688), fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels (−18.62 ± 24.68 vs. −14.66 ± 45.35 ppb, P = 0.415), sputum eosinophils (−3.40 ± 10.60 vs. −14.48 ± 24.01 %, P = 0.065), blood eosinophils (−36.47 ± 517.02 vs. −363.22 ± 1294.59, P = 0.013), and exacerbation frequency (−3.07 ± 4.42 vs. −3.19 ± 5.11, P = 0.943). The odds ratio for exacerbation and time-to-first exacerbation showed no significant difference after full adjustments, and subgroup analysis according to biologic type was also showed similar results. Conclusions: Biologics treatment response patterns in patients with ACO and asthma were comparable, suggesting that biologics should be actively considered for ACO patients as well.

Background: Drug-induced hypersensitivity such as anaphylaxis is an important cause of drug-related morbidity and mortality. Cefaclor is a leading cause of drug induced type I hypersensitivity in Korea, but little is yet known about genetic biomarkers to predict this hypersensitivity reaction. We aimed to evaluate the possible involvement of genes in cefaclor induced type I hypersensitivity. Methods: Whole exome sequencing (WES) and HLA genotyping were performed in 43 patients with cefaclor induced type I hypersensitivity. In addition, homology modeling was performed to identify the binding forms of cefaclor to HLA site. Results: Anaphylaxis was the most common phenotype of cefaclor hypersensitivity (90.69%). WES results show that rs62242177 and rs62242178 located in LIMD1 region were genome-wide significant at the 5 × 10−8 significance level. Cefaclor induced type I hypersensitivity was significantly associated with HLA-DRB1∗04:03 (OR 4.61 [95% CI 1.51–14.09], P