Search

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 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 severe adult asthma patients 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 severe asthma patients 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

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

Asthma and allergies can cause serious complications during pregnancy and often they are misdiagosed or mistreated. Anna Nolte, Marie Hastings-Tolsma and Flavia Hoyte look at ways nurses and midwives can recognise the symptoms quicker Asthma and allergic rhinitis are two of the most common health problems worldwide and can present serious complication during pregnancy. While these diseases may improve, remain unchanged, or become exacerbated during pregnancy, they are frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. The inflammatory processes involved in asthma and allergic rhinitis are superimposed on the normal respiratory changes of pregnancy, making early intervention crucial. Recognition of factors that can aggravate asthma, implementation and adherence to treatment guidelines, and diligent follow-up are important in midwifery management. Patient education is particularly important for prevention of asthma exacerbations. With careful control of asthma and allergic rhinitis, if present, excellent obstetric outcomes can be expected.

Rationale: Anxiety is a common comorbidity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We evaluated three anxiety screening questionnaires: the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale (GAD-7), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety subscale (HADS-A), and the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory Disease (AIR). Objectives: To evaluate and compare the test performance characteristics of three anxiety screening questionnaires, using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), version 7.0, as the “gold standard.” Methods: Individuals with COPD were recruited at 16 centers. The MINI and questionnaires were administered by trained research coordinators at an in-person visit and readministered by telephone 2–4 weeks later. A composite score for the presence of any Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-V) anxiety disorder was computed, based on the MINI as the gold standard, compared with a participant screening positive on self-report measures for these analyses. Results: Two hundred and twenty eligible individuals with COPD were enrolled; 219 completed the study. Eleven percent were identified as having a DSM-V anxiety disorder, based on the MINI. Elevated anxiety symptoms based on questionnaires were 38% for the AIR, 30% for the GAD-7, and 20% for the HADS-A. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was highest for the GAD-7 (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.87), followed by the HADS-A (0.74; 95% CI, 0.64–0.84) and the AIR (0.66; 95% CI, 0.56–0.76). The AUC for the GAD-7 was significantly greater than for the AIR (P = 0.014). Sensitivity was not statistically different among the questionnaires: 77% for the GAD-7, 63% for the HADS-A, and 66% for the AIR. The HADS-A had the highest specificity, 85%, which was significantly higher than that of the GAD-7 (77%; P