Dataset Information

"Real-life" management of patients with severe asthma in the biologics era: Can we do better?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Discrepancies exist between guidelines and real-life practice in severe asthma. Objectives: To establish profiles for severe asthma patients according to their maintenance therapies and identify unmet needs.

Methods

2432 French lung specialists and allergists were invited to participate in a severe asthma survey between March and April 2018. Retrospective data were collected using an electronic case report form developed by IQVIA.

Results

71 respiratory physicians and/or allergists participated in the study, providing data for 736 severe asthma patients. The annual mean rates of hospitalization and exacerbation in the previous year were 0.65 (SD = 0.5) and 2.25 (SD = 1.0), respectively. One hundred one (13.7%) patients were treated with oral steroids; the mean dosage regimen was 16.1 mg per day (SD = 11.2). ICS-LABA-LAMA triple inhaled therapy was reported for 288 patients (39%); 231 patients (31.4%) had one biologic in their maintenance treatment. Among patients hospitalized at least once in the previous year (n = 311), 89 (28.5%) were currently treated with biologics, and 61 (19.6%) with oral steroids. One hundred sixty-six patients with uncontrolled asthma and no current biologic therapy had data for "T2 status"; 78 (47%), 89 (53.6%) and 137 (82.5%) of them had treatment criteria respectively for an anti-IgE, anti-IL5-pathway or anti-IL-4/IL-13 pathway therapy; 22 (13.2%) were ineligible for any current biologic according to biomarkers.

Conclusion

Our study updated "real-life" therapeutic management data for severe asthma in France in 2018. We highlighted a need for improved patient-phenotyping. This work also gives a striking insight of the position of current and forthcoming biologics.

SUBMITTER: Charriot J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7985558 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) is the world's largest national severe asthma registry collecting standardised data on referrals to UK specialist services. Novel biologic therapies have transformed the management of type 2(T2)-high severe asthma but have highlighted unmet need in patients with persisting symptoms despite suppression of T2-cytokine pathways with corticosteroids.MethodsDemographic, clinical and treatments characteristics for patients meeting European Respiratory Society / American Thoracic Society severe asthma criteria were examined for 2225 patients attending 15 specialist severe asthma centres. We assessed differences in biomarker low patients (fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) <25?ppb, blood eosinophils <150/?L) compared with a biomarker high population (FeNO ?25?ppb, blood eosinophils ?150/µL).ResultsAge (mean 49.6 (14.3) y), age of asthma onset (24.2 (19.1) y) and female predominance (62.4%) were consistent with prior severe asthma cohorts. Poor symptom control (Asthma Control Questionnaire-6: 2.9 (1.4)) with high exacerbation rate (4 (IQR: 2, 7)) were common despite high-dose treatment (51.7% on maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS)). 68.9% were prescribed biologic therapies including mepolizumab (50.3%), benralizumab (26.1%) and omalizumab (22.6%). T2-low patients had higher body mass index (32.1 vs 30.2, p<0.001), depression/anxiety prevalence (12.3% vs 7.6%, p=0.04) and mOCS use (57.9% vs 42.1%, p<0.001). Many T2-low asthmatics had evidence of a historically elevated blood eosinophil count (0.35 (0.13, 0.60)).ConclusionsThe UKSAR describes the characteristics of a large cohort of asthmatics referred to UK specialist severe asthma services. It offers the prospect of providing novel insights across a range of research areas and highlights substantial unmet need with poor asthma control, impaired lung function and high exacerbation rates. T2-high phenotypes predominate with significant differences apparent from T2-low patients. However, T2-low patients frequently have prior blood eosinophilia consistent with possible excessive corticosteroid exposure.

Project description:BackgroundData on mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (EA) and comorbidities are needed to assess whether randomized controlled trial results are applicable in the real world.ObjectiveTo evaluate real-life effectiveness and the presence/absence of predictors of treatment response in patients with one or more comorbidities (nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome, obesity, bronchiectasis) who received mepolizumab (MEPO) for the treatment of severe EA.MethodsWe performed a single-center retrospective study in patients with severe asthma and presence of comorbidities treated with mepolizumab at the respiratory outpatient clinic, Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele, Catania, Italy. Health records of 31 severe asthmatic patients were retrieved and analyzed. Asthma control test (ACT) score, blood eosinophil count, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), FEV1% of predicted and FEV1/FVC (Forced Vital Capacity) ratio, oral corticosteroid (OCS) dosage, and exacerbations were recorded at baseline (T0), after 3 (T1), 6 (T3), 9 (T6), and 12 months (T12). Clinical response was defined when 3 of these 4 criteria were fulfilled: i) 30% exacerbation decrease; ii) 80% blood eosinophilia reduction; iii) 3 point ACT increase; iv) FEV1 increase ≥200 mL.Results83.87% of patients were classified as responsive to MEPO treatment. Substantial depletion of the blood eosinophils (>80%) was found in 87.1% of patients, FEV1 > 200 mL was seen in 54.84% of patients, a 3-point ACT improvement from baseline was recorded in 80.65% 25 of patients and a 30% reduction of exacerbations rates was seen in 96.77% of patients. Moreover, the majority 38.71% of patients met 3/4 parameters after 12 months. Neither the comorbidities nor other characteristics (sex, BMI, age, smoking) influenced treatment response.ConclusionsMEPO in patients with severe EA is effective regardless of the presence of comorbidities.