Search

Background: To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials. Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life. Methods: This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers. Results: Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for antiI-IL4R alpha. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/mu L), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and - anti- IL4R alpha, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4R alpha, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for

Background: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma. Methods: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV 1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day. Results: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV 1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40–50% of initiators did not meet response criteria. Conclusions: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40–50% did not meet the response criteria.

Background Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone. Objective To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS. Methods This was a propensity score–matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models. Results We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]). Conclusions In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization., Background: Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS. Methods: This was a propensity score–matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models. Results: We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]). Conclusions: In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization.

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 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: It is unclear whether patients with asthma benefit from stepping up to high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Objective: To determine the effectiveness of stepping up to high-dose ICSs. Methods: A historic cohort study of patients with asthma (≥13 years old), identified from 2 large UK electronic medical record databases, was conducted. Patients who remained on medium-dose ICSs were compared with those who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs, whereas patients who stepped up from low- to medium-dose ICSs were compared with those who stepped up from low- to high-dose ICSs. Time to first severe exacerbation (primary outcome) between treatment groups was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and the number of exacerbations and antibiotics courses was analyzed using negative binomial regression. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to handle confounding. Results: The mean follow-up time to first exacerbation was 2.7 ± 2.7 years for those who remained on stable medium-dose ICSs and 2.0 ± 2.2 years for those who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs. A similar pattern was noted for those who stepped up from low- to medium-dose ICSs (2.6 ± 2.5 years) and from low- to high-dose ICSs (2.3 ± 2.5 years). Patients who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs (n = 6879) had a higher risk of exacerbations during follow-up compared with those who remained on medium-dose ICSs (n = 51,737; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.12-1.22). This was similar in patients stepping up from low- to high-dose (n = 3232) compared with low- to medium-dose (n = 12,659) ICSs (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17). A step-up to high-dose ICSs was also associated with a higher number of asthma exacerbations and antibiotics courses. No significant difference in associations was found across subgroups of patients with different blood eosinophil counts. Conclusions: We found no evidence that a step-up to high-dose ICSs is effective in prevent

Introduction: 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.

Background: 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 di

Introduction: 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.

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 < .001) and worse lung function (postbronchodilator % predicted FEV1, 76.1% vs 89.3%; P = .027) than those with a noneosinophilic phenotype. Patients with noneosinophilic phenotypes were more likely to be women (81.5% vs 62.9%; P = .047), to have eczema (20.8% vs 8.5%; P = .003), and to use anti-IgE (32.1% vs 13.4%; P = .004) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (50.0% vs 28.0%; P = .011) add-on therapy. Interpretation: According to this multicomponent, consensus-driven, and evidence-based eosinophil gradient algorithm (using variables readily accessi

Regional and/or national severe asthma registries provide valuable country-specific information. However, they are often limited in scope within the broader definitions of severe asthma, have insufficient statistical power to answer many research questions, lack intraoperability to share lessons learned, and have fundamental differences in data collected, making cross comparisons difficult. What is missing is a worldwide registry which brings all severe asthma data together in a cohesive way, under a single umbrella, based on standardized data collection protocols, permitting data to be shared seamlessly. The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) is the first global adult severe asthma registry. It is a joint initiative where national registries (both newly created and preexisting) retain ownership of their own data but open their borders and share data with ISAR for ethically approved research purposes. Its strength comes from collection of patient-level, anonymous, longitudinal, real-life, standardized, high-quality data (using a core set of variables) from countries across the world, combined with organizational structure, database experience, inclusivity/openness, and clinical, academic, and database expertise. This gives ISAR sufficient statistical power to answer important research questions, sufficient data standardization to compare across countries and regions, and the structure and expertise necessary to ensure its continuance and the scientific integrity and clinical applicability of its research. ISAR offers a unique opportunity to implement existing knowledge, generate new knowledge, and identify the unknown, therefore promoting new research. The aim of this commentary is to fully describe how ISAR may improve our understanding of severe asthma.

Regional and/or national severe asthma registries provide valuable country-specific information. However, they are often limited in scope within the broader definitions of severe asthma, have insufficient statistical power to answer many research questions, lack intraoperability to share lessons learned, and have fundamental differences in data collected, making cross comparisons difficult. What is missing is a worldwide registry which brings all severe asthma data together in a cohesive way, under a single umbrella, based on standardized data collection protocols, permitting data to be shared seamlessly. The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) is the first global adult severe asthma registry. It is a joint initiative where national registries (both newly created and preexisting) retain ownership of their own data but open their borders and share data with ISAR for ethically approved research purposes. Its strength comes from collection of patient-level, anonymous, longitudinal, real-life, standardized, high-quality data (using a core set of variables) from countries across the world, combined with organizational structure, database experience, inclusivity/openness, and clinical, academic, and database expertise. This gives ISAR sufficient statistical power to answer important research questions, sufficient data standardization to compare across countries and regions, and the structure and expertise necessary to ensure its continuance and the scientific integrity and clinical applicability of its research. ISAR offers a unique opportunity to implement existing knowledge, generate new knowledge, and identify the unknown, therefore promoting new research. The aim of this commentary is to fully describe how ISAR may improve our understanding of severe asthma.