Search

Trung N Tran,1 Heath Heatley,2 Arnaud Bourdin,3 Andrew Menzies-Gow,4,5 David J Jackson,6 Ekaterina Maslova,5 Jatin Chapaneri,5 William Henley,2,7 Victoria Carter,2 Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan,2 Cono Ariti,2 John Haughney,8,9 David Price2,9 1BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 2Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 3Department of Respiratory Diseases, PhyMedExp, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 4Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals and School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 5BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 6Guy’s Severe Asthma Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 7Department of Health and Community Sciences University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK; 8NHS Clinical Research Facilities, Glasgow, UK; 9Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgPurpose: Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use for asthma is associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. However, no study has investigated this in relation to patterns of intermittent OCS prescription.Methods: This historical UK cohort study used primary care medical records, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, from 2008 to 2019, of patients (≥ 4 years old) with asthma prescribed intermittent OCS. Patients were categorized by OCS prescribing pattern (one-off [single], less frequent [≥ 90-day gap] and frequent [< 90-day gap]) and matched 1:1 (by sex, age and index date) with people never prescribed OCS with/without asthma. HCRU (reported as episodes, except for length of hospital stay [days] and any prescription [records]) and associated costs were compared between intermittent OCS and non-OCS cohorts, and among intermittent OCS prescribing patterns.Results: Of 149,191 eligible patients, 50.3% had one-off, 27.4% less frequent, and 22.3% frequent intermittent OCS prescribing patterns. Annualized non-respiratory HCRU rates were greater in the intermittent OCS versus non-OCS cohorts for GP visits (5.93 vs 4.70 episodes, p < 0.0001), hospital admissions (0.24 vs 0.16 episodes, p < 0.0001), and length of stay (1.87 vs 1.58 days, p < 0.0001). In the intermittent OCS cohort, rates were highest in the frequent prescribing group for GP visits (7.49 episodes; p < 0.0001 vs one-off), length of stay (2.15 days; p < 0.0001) and any prescription including OCS (25.22 prescriptions; p < 0.0001). Mean per-patient non-respiratory related and all-cause HCRU-related costs were higher with intermittent OCS than no OCS (£ 3902 vs £ 2722 and £ 8623 vs £ 4929, respectively), as were mean annualized costs (£ 565 vs £ 313 and £ 1526 vs £ 634, respectively). A dose–response relationship existed; HCRU-related costs were highest in the frequent prescribing cohort (p < 0.0001).Conclusion: Intermittent OCS use and more frequent intermittent OCS prescription patterns were associated with increased HCRU and associated costs. Improved asthma management is needed to reduce reliance on intermittent OCS in primary care.Keywords: asthma, costs, healthcare resource utilization, intermittent, oral corticosteroids

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1,2 Trung N Tran,3 Brooklyn Stanley,4 Victoria Ann Carter,4 Josef S Smolen,5 Arnaud Bourdin,6 J Mark Fitzgerald7 ,† Tim Raine,8 Jatin Chapaneri,2 Benjamin Emmanuel,3 David J Jackson,9,10 David B Price4,11 1Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guys & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 2AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 5Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 6Université de Montpellier, CHU Montpellier, PhyMedExp, INSERM, CNRS, Montpellier, France; 7The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 8Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK; 9Guy’s Severe Asthma Centre, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 10School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 11Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK†J. Mark Fitzgerald passed away on January 18, 2022Correspondence: David B Price, Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building-Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgPurpose: Associations between systemic glucocorticoid (SGC) exposure and risk for adverse outcomes have spurred a move toward steroid-sparing treatment strategies. Real-world changes in SGC exposure over time, after the introduction of steroid-sparing treatment strategies, reveal areas of successful risk mitigation as well as unmet needs.Patients and Methods: A population-based ecological study was performed from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database to describe SGC prescribing trends of steroid-sparing treatment strategies in primary care practices before and after licensure of biologics in the United Kingdom from 1990 to 2019. Each analysis year included patients aged ≥ 5 years who were registered for ≥ 1 year with a participating primary care practice. The primary analysis was SGC exposure, defined as total cumulative SGC dose per patient per year, for asthma, severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), nasal polyps, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Secondary outcomes were percentages of patients prescribed SGCs and number of SGC prescriptions per patient per year.Results: The number of patients who met study inclusion criteria ranged from 219,862 (1990) to 1,261,550 (2019). At the population level, patients with asthma or COPD accounted for 67.7% to 73.2% of patients per year with an SGC prescription. Over three decades, decreases in SGC total yearly dose ≥ 1000 mg have been achieved in multiple conditions. Patients with COPD prescribed SGCs increased from 5.8% (1990) to 34.8% (2017). SGC prescribing trends for severe asthma, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis show decreased prescribing trends after the introduction of biologics.Conclusion: Decreases in total yearly SGC doses have been shown in multiple conditions; however, for conditions such as severe asthma and COPD, an unmet need remains for increased awareness of SGC burden and the adoption or development of SGC-sparing alternatives to reduce overuse.Keywords: glucocorticoids, practice patterns, drug prescriptions, biological products, drug utilization

Jonathan Corren,1 David J Jackson,2,3 Thomas B Casale,4 Larry Borish,5,6 Klaus F Rabe,7,8 William W Busse,9 Jorge F Maspero,10 Daniel J Jackson,11 Nadia Daizadeh,12 Arman Altincatal,12 Amr Radwan,13 Angela Khodzhayev,13 Michel Djandji,12 Juby A Jacob-Nara,12,14 Paul J Rowe,14 Yamo Deniz13 1David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2King’s College London, London, UK; 3Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 4Division of Allergy and Immunology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; 5Asthma and Allergic Disease Center, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 6Carter Immunology Center, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 7LungenClinic Grosshansdorf (Member of the German Center for Lung Research [DZL]), Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Grosshansdorf, Germany; 8Christian-Albrechts University (Member of the German Center for Lung Research [DZL]), Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Kiel, Germany; 9UW Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 10Fundación CIDEA, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 11University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 12Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA; 13Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY, USA; 14Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USACorrespondence: Jonathan Corren, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10780 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 280, Los Angeles, CA, 90025, USA, Email jcorren@ucla.eduPurpose: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukins-4/-13, key and central drivers of type 2 (T2) inflammation in multiple diseases. In phase 3 QUEST (NCT02414854), dupilumab vs placebo significantly reduced asthma exacerbation rates (AER) and improved pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma, with greater effects in patients with elevated T2 biomarkers (≥ 150 eosinophils/μL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] ≥ 25 parts per billion). Overall safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. This post hoc analysis assessed dupilumab efficacy in QUEST patients with T2 asthma with evidence of an allergic phenotype (baseline serum IgE ≥ 30 IU/mL and aeroallergen-specific IgE ≥ 0.35 IU/mL) by number of aeroallergen sensitizations: 1, 2, 3, or ≥ 4. Non-sensitized patients (serum total IgE < 30 IU/mL without evidence of allergic phenotype) were also assessed.Patients and Methods: Endpoints were annualized AER, change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and asthma control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-5]), and FeNO and serum total IgE levels over the 52-week treatment period.Results: In all subgroups by number of allergens sensitized, dupilumab vs placebo reduced AER by 35– 67% and improved both pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at Week 12 (least squares mean differences: 0.10– 0.26 L across subgroups) and ACQ-5 score at Week 52 (– 0.26 to – 0.43). Dupilumab significantly reduced FeNO and total IgE levels at Week 52 compared with placebo. Similar results were observed in non-sensitized patients.Conclusion: Dupilumab improved clinical outcomes and reduced biomarker levels in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe T2 asthma irrespective of allergen sensitization status or number.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02414854.Keywords: dupilumab, allergic asthma, type 2 asthma, perennial aeroallergen

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

Nicola A Hanania,1 Jorge F Maspero,2 David MG Halpin,3 David J Jackson,4,5 Reynold A Panettieri,6 Mario Castro,7 Christian Domingo,8 Nadia Daizadeh,9 Rebecca Gall,10 Juby A Jacob-Nara,11 Benjamin Ortiz,10 Michel Djandji,9 Paul J Rowe,11 Yamo Deniz10 1Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 2Fundación CIDEA, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 3University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; 4School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 5Guy’s Severe Asthma Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 6Child Health Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 7University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA; 8Pulmonary Service, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 9Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA; 10Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY, USA; 11Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USACorrespondence: Nicola A Hanania, Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA, Tel +1 713 798-2400, Email hanania@bcm.edu

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