Pediatric asthma: guidelines-based care, omalizumab, and other potential biologic agents.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huffaker MF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4254501 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pediatric asthma: guidelines-based care, omalizumab, and other potential biologic agents.
Huffaker Michelle Fox MF Phipatanakul Wanda W
Immunology and allergy clinics of North America 20141121 1
Over the past several decades, the evidence supporting rational pediatric asthma management has grown considerably. As more is learned about the various phenotypes of asthma, the complexity of management will continue to grow. This article focuses on the evidence supporting the current guidelines-based pediatric asthma management and explores the future of asthma management with respect to phenotypic heterogeneity and biologics. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6446829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Omalizumab is licensed as add-on therapy for patients with severe allergic asthma. Response is in most studies scored by the physician's global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE). A good clinical and validated parameter for treatment response is currently missing. Also, there are no established criteria for identifying patients who will respond to omalizumab based on pre-treatment characteristics. The Dutch National Omalizumab in Asthma Registry was developed in 2011 to better evaluate inclusion criteria and measure treatment response after 4 months.This is a "real world" prospectively designed, observational data registry in which the outcomes of patients who received omalizumab between 2012 and 2015 were evaluated. Data were collected from all centers in the Netherlands comprising demographic features, criteria for starting treatment, GETE, FEV1, oral corticosteroid use and ACQ.65.5% of the 403 patients had a good or excellent response to omalizumab after 16 weeks according to the treating physician GETE. 64.5% fulfilled all the criteria for prescribing omalizumab at baseline. The mean ACQ improved from 2.96 at baseline to 1.83 at 16 weeks (p < 0.001). 75.3% of the responders showed more than 0.5 points improvement in the ACQ. The mean FEV1 increased from 71.58 to 79.06 (p < 0.001). There was no relationship between patients with a FEV1 <80 and ≥80% at baseline and response (p = 0.981). Most of the responders had a considerable improvement of FEV1 either/or ACQ or OCS use (88.3%). While 86.7% of the responders had an improvement of either ACQ or FEV1. 75.4% of the responders had an improvement of ACQ, while 50.4% had an improvement of FEV1. Finally 11.7% of the patients with no improvement of FEV1, ACQ or OCS use were considered to have a good response.This registry of 403 inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma patients in the Netherlands showed a good or excellent response of 65.5% to omalizumab after 16 weeks, in accordance with previous studies. The assumption that careful registration would lead to higher response rates could not be supported by the data from this registry. Improvement of ACQ appears to be a useful additional assessment tool to measure response in omalizumab treated patients.
| S-EPMC5530516 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundOmalizumab is the first biological therapy used to treat moderate-to-severe asthma and certainly the one with the highest number of publications.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine two critical outcomes of omalizumab therapy, asthma exacerbation rate, the reduction of the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and the improvement of the lung function as a secondary outcome using the following keywords in the MEDLINE database: "anti-IgE, severe asthma, children, and randomized controlled trial." We specifically selected papers that included moderate-to-severe asthma patients and collected data on children and adolescents.ResultsFour RCT studies (total number of patients = 1,239) were included in the analysis. The reported data on exacerbations showed an overall improvement in the exacerbation rate with a decreased use of inhaled steroids and some other minimal clinically important difference (MCID).ConclusionsOur systematic review confirms the known findings that omalizumab therapy decreases asthma exacerbation rate and reduces background therapy inhaled steroid dose. Therefore, add-on therapy with omalizumab shows a good efficacy and safety profile, thus proving to be a useful additional therapeutic option.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023396785.
| S-EPMC10020639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceFew studies have compared the use of methotrexate and biologics, the most commonly used systemic medications for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis in children.ObjectiveTo assess the real-world, 6-month reduction in psoriasis severity and long-term drug survival (rate and duration of adherence to a specific drug) of methotrexate vs biologics in plaque psoriasis in children.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective medical records review was conducted at 20 European and North American centers. Treatment response was based on site-reported Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and/or Physician Global Assessment (PGA) scores at baseline and within the first 6 months of treatment. Participants included all 234 consecutively seen children with moderate to severe psoriasis who received at least 3 months of methotrexate or biologics from December 1, 1990, to September 16, 2014, with sufficient data for analysis. Data analysis was performed from December 14, 2015, to September 1, 2016.Main outcomes and measuresPASI, with a range from 0 to 72 (highest score indicating severe psoriasis), and/or PGA, with a scale of 0 (clear), 1 (minimal), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), 4 (severe), and 5 (very severe).ResultsOf 234 pediatric patients (103 boys [44.0%]; 131 girls [56.0%]) treated with methotrexate and/or biologics, 163 patients (69.7%) exclusively received methotrexate, 47 patients (20.1%) exclusively received biologics, and 24 children (10.2%) received methotrexate and biologics sequentially. Of the latter cohort, 23 children were treated initially with methotrexate. Mean (SD) age at initiation was 11.6 (3.7) years for methotrexate and 13.3 (2.9) years for biologics (73.2% for etanercept) (P = .002). Among patients evaluated by a scoring method at 6-month follow-up, 75% or greater improvement in PASI (PASI75) was achieved in 12 of 30 patients (40.0%) receiving methotrexate and 20 of 28 patients (71.4%) receiving biologics, and PGA was clear/almost clear (PGA 0/1) in 41 of 115 patients (35.6%) receiving methotrexate and 18 of 37 patients (48.6%) receiving biologics. Achieving PASI75 and/or PGA 0/1 between baseline and 6 months was more likely with biologics than methotrexate (PASI75: odds ratio [OR], 4.56; 95% CI, 2.02-10.27; P < .001; and PGA 0/1: OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.98-4.00; P = .06). Decreased mean PASI and PGA scores were associated with biologics more than with methotrexate (PASI effect, -3.13; 95% CI, -4.33 to -1.94; P < .001; and PGA effect, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.06; P = .02). After 1, 3, and 5 years of use, overall drug survival rates for methotrexate were 77.5%, 50.3%, and 35.9%, and for biologics, the rates were 83.4%, 64.3%, and 57.1%, respectively. Biologics were associated with a better confounder-corrected drug survival than methotrexate (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.21-4.10; P = .01). Discontinuation owing to lack of response was comparable (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.80-3.36; P = .18).Conclusions and relevanceMethotrexate and biologics appear to be associated with improvement in pediatric psoriasis, although biologics seem to be associated with greater reduction in psoriasis severity scores and higher drug survival rates than methotrexate in the real-world setting. Additional studies directly comparing these medications should be performed for confirmation.
| S-EPMC7042803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectives: Although primary care clinicians provide >60% of U.S. asthma care, no nationally representative study has examined variation in adherence among primary care groups to four cornerstone domains of the Expert Panel Report-3 asthma guidelines: assessment/monitoring, patient education, environmental assessment, and medications. We used the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to compare adherence by family/general medicine practitioners (FM/GM), internists, pediatricians and Community Health Center mid-level clinicians (CHC). Methods: Adherence was self-reported (n = 1355 clinicians). Adjusted odds of almost always adhering to each recommendation (≥75% of the time) were estimated controlling for clinician/practice characteristics, and agreement and self-efficacy with guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of pediatricians adhered to most assessment/monitoring recommendations compared to FM/GM and other groups (e.g. 71.6% [SE 4.0] almost always assessed daytime symptoms versus 50.6% [SE 5.1]-51.1% [SE 5.8], t-test p < 0.05) but low percentages from all groups almost always performed spirometry (6.8% [SE 2.0]-16.8% [SE 4.7]). Pediatricians were more likely to provide asthma action/treatment plans than FM/GM and internists. Internists were more likely to assess school/work triggers than pediatricians and CHC (environmental assessment). All groups prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for daily control (84.0% [SE 3.7]-90.7% [SE 2.5]) (medications). In adjusted analyses, pediatric specialty, high self-efficacy and frequent specialist referral were associated with high adherence. Conclusions: Pediatricians were more likely to report high adherence than other clinicians. Self- efficacy and frequent referral were also associated with adherence. Adherence was higher for history-taking recommendations and lower for recommendations involving patient education, equipment and expertise.
| S-EPMC6717679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although a rare disease, severe therapy-resistant asthma in children is a cause of significant morbidity and results in utilization of approximately 50% of health-care resources for asthma. Improving control for children with severe asthma is, therefore, an urgent unmet clinical need. As a group, children with severe asthma have severe and multiple allergies, steroid resistant airway eosinophilia, and significant structural changes of the airway wall (airway remodeling). Omalizumab is currently the only add-on therapy that is licensed for use in children with severe asthma. However, limitations of its use include ineligibility for approximately one-third of patients because of serum IgE levels outside the recommended range and lack of clinical efficacy in a further one-third. Pediatric severe asthma is thus markedly heterogeneous, but our current understanding of the different mechanisms underpinning various phenotypes is very limited. We know that there are distinctions between the factors that drive pediatric and adult disease since pediatric disease develops in the context of a maturing immune system and during lung growth and development. This review summarizes the current data that give insight into the pathophysiology of pediatric severe asthma and will highlight potential targets for novel therapies. It is apparent that in order to identify novel treatments for pediatric severe asthma, the challenge of undertaking mechanistic studies using age appropriate experimental models and airway samples from children needs to be accepted to allow a targeted approach of personalized medicine to be achieved.
| S-EPMC5497140 | biostudies-other
Project description:Omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds circulating IgE antibody, is a treatment option for patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma whose asthma is poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and inhaled long-acting β(2) agonist bronchodilators. This review considers the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and place in management of omalizumab in asthma and focuses particularly on key articles published over the last three years. Omalizumab reduces IgE mediated airway inflammation and its effect on airway remodeling is under investigation. Recent long-term clinical trials confirm the benefits of omalizumab in reducing exacerbations and symptoms in adults and in children with moderate to severe allergic asthma. No clinical or immunological factor consistently predicts a good therapeutic response to omalizumab in allergic asthma. In responders, the duration of treatment is unclear. The main adverse effect of omalizumab is anaphylaxis, although this occurs infrequently. Preliminary data from a five-year safety study has raised concerns about increased cardiovascular events and a final report is awaited. Clinical trials are in progress to determine whether omalizumab has efficacy in the treatment of non-allergic asthma.
| S-EPMC3382304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of biologics has significantly changed the management of rheumatoid arthritis over the last decade, becoming the cornerstone treatment for many patients. The current therapeutic arsenal consists of just under 10 biologic agents, with four different mechanisms of action. Several studies have demonstrated a large interindividual pharmacokinetic variability, which translates to unpredictability in clinical response among individuals. The present review focuses on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of biologic agents approved for rheumatoid arthritis. The literature relating to their concentration-effect relationship and the use of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling to optimize drug regimens is analysed. Due to the scarcity and complexity of these studies, the current dosing strategy is based on clinical indexes/aspects. In general, dose individualization for biologics should be implemented increasingly in clinical practice as there is a direct benefit for treated rheumatoid arthritis patients. Moreover, there is an indirect benefit in terms of cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC5401978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe OSMO study assessed the efficacy of switching to mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma that was uncontrolled whilst receiving omalizumab. The objective of this analysis was to assess the proportion of patients achieving pre-defined improvements in up to four efficacy outcomes and the relationship between patient baseline characteristics and treatment response.MethodsThis was a post hoc analysis of OSMO study data (GSK ID:204471; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02654145). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, other controller(s) and omalizumab subcutaneously (≥ 4 months) were switched to mepolizumab 100 mg administered subcutaneously. Endpoints included the proportion of responders-i.e. patients achieving a pre-defined clinical improvement in ≥ 1 of the following outcomes: (1) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score (≥ 0.5-points), (2) St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥ 4-points), (3) pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1; ≥ 100 mL), all at Week 32, and (4) annualised rate of clinically significant exacerbations (≥ 50% reduction).ResultsOf the 145 patients included, 94%, 83%, 63% and 31% were responders for ≥ 1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3 and 4 outcomes, respectively; 75% and 78% were ACQ-5 and SGRQ score responders, and 50% and 69% were FEV1 and exacerbation responders. Subgroup analyses demonstrated improvements irrespective of baseline blood eosinophil count, prior omalizumab treatment regimen/duration, comorbidities, prior exacerbation history, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, ACQ-5 and SGRQ scores, and body weight/body mass index.ConclusionsAfter switching to mepolizumab, almost all patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma on omalizumab achieved a beneficial response in ≥ 1 clinical outcome. Improvements were observed regardless of baseline characteristics. Trial registration This manuscript is a post hoc analysis of data from the OSMO study. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654145. Registered January 13, 2016.
| S-EPMC8111733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Omalizumab is recommended as an add-on therapy in patients aged ≥6 years with inadequately controlled, moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma. The efficacy and safety of omalizumab treatment in allergic asthma clinical trials and its effectiveness in the real world have been reported in numerous studies. In this review, we examine clinical evidence in pediatric and adult patients with allergic asthma who received omalizumab treatment for at least 2 years, to assess its effectiveness, durability, and trajectory of response over time as well as safety. We performed a literature search from inception until March 2022 in PubMed using the keywords “omalizumab” and “allergic asthma” to retrieve articles examining the effects of omalizumab in patients with allergic asthma, aged ≥6 years. Only articles that evaluated the effectiveness of omalizumab for at least 2 years were included. Data from case reports were excluded. Our review confirmed the long-term effectiveness and safety of omalizumab, demonstrating reduced rate of exacerbations, improved lung function, asthma control, and quality of life, decreased health care resource utilization, and use of corticosteroids (oral/inhaled) with a favorable safety and tolerability profile for up to 9 years in adult patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Similar results were also observed in the pediatric population with up to 7.5 years of omalizumab treatment. This review highlights and confirms the sustained clinical benefits of omalizumab over long periods of treatment in pediatric and adult populations with allergic asthma.
| S-EPMC9519799 | biostudies-literature