Dataset Information

REal worlD Effectiveness and Safety of Mepolizumab in a Multicentric Spanish Cohort of Asthma Patients Stratified by Eosinophils: The REDES Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy of mepolizumab is well documented in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), although the stringent selection criteria adopted by SEA clinical trials limits the generalizability of results.

Objective

Our study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in patients with SEA in Spain. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations 12 months after starting mepolizumab compared to the baseline rate in the 12 months prior to treatment. Patients were stratified by baseline blood eosinophil counts.

Methods

We conducted a multicentric observational cohort study of SEA patients treated with mepolizumab across 24 specialized hospital asthma units in Spain. Severe exacerbation rate, lung function, oral corticosteroid use (OCS) and asthma control test (ACT) were retrospectively collected and compared during the 12-month pre- and post-mepolizumab treatment. Adverse events were also investigated.

Results

A total of 318 patients with SEA were included (mean age: 56.6 years, 69.2% female). Exacerbation rates decreased by 77.5%, and 50.6% of patients did not suffer any exacerbations during the 12 months of treatment. The difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) pre- and post-bronchodilator after starting mepolizumab was 0.21 (0.46) L (95% CI 0.14-0.27) (p < 0.001). Exacerbations and lung function significantly improved across all eosinophil subgroups. Among the 98 patients on OCS, 47.8% were able to discontinue this treatment and the mean daily dose was decreased by 59.9%. The baseline ACT score was 14.1, increasing by a mean (SD) of 6.7 points (1.9) at 12 months. Adverse events related to mepolizumab were uncommon.

Conclusions

This real-world study of SEA patients confirms that mepolizumab is effective in reducing clinically meaningful exacerbations, improving lung function, and decreasing OCS dependence and mean OCS dose at 12 months, irrespective of baseline eosinophil counts.

SUBMITTER: Domingo Ribas C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8550660 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundMepolizumab, the first widely available anti-interleukin 5 biologic, targets eosinophilic inflammation and has been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations, oral corticosteroid dependence, and healthcare utilization in patients with severe asthma. The impact of mepolizumab in a real-world, publicly funded healthcare setting is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe the demographics and clinical characteristics of real-world patients receiving mepolizumab, and to compare asthma-related outcomes and associated asthma-related costs before and during mepolizumab use.MethodsThis retrospective, observational study in Ontario, Canada, included patients initiating mepolizumab between February 2016 and March 2019. Patients were identified using the mepolizumab patient support program and linked to the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences database of publicly accessed healthcare. Patient outcomes were obtained for 12 months pre- and post-mepolizumab initiation and compared.ResultsA total of 275 patients were enrolled in the overall patient support program cohort (mean [standard deviation] age 57.6 [13.5] years, mean [standard deviation] of the median per-patient eosinophil count 540.4 [491.9] cells/μL). Mepolizumab was associated with reductions in asthma exacerbations (46.1%, P < 0.001) and in the number of asthma-related visits to general practitioners (40.2%, P < 0.001), specialists (27.2%, P < 0.001), and emergency departments (52.1%, P < 0.001). Associated costs were significantly lower post- versus pre-mepolizumab for asthma-related general practitioner and specialist visits, and for all-cause emergency department visits and hospital admissions.ConclusionsIn a real-world population of Canadian patients with severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype, the use of mepolizumab within a patient support program reduced asthma exacerbations and decreased asthma-related healthcare resource utilization and associated costs.

Project description:IntroductionIn recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting ?2-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®) was conducted.MethodsThis was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ? 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions.ResultsThe safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ? 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ? 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment.ConclusionIn this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the treatment outcomes of secukinumab in clinical practice, which differ from those in clinical trials. The effectiveness of biologics may differ in psoriasis patients with previous biologics exposure. The objective of this study was to investigate the real-world effectiveness and safety of secukinumab therapy and analyze subgroups stratified by reimbursement or prior biologic failure.MethodsThis retrospective multicenter study collected data from a cohort of 118 consecutive patients who received secukinumab treatment between December 2015 and March 2018. Effectiveness was evaluated by degree of improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores. Adverse events and reasons for discontinuation were also recorded.ResultsThe mean PASI improvement rate at weeks 4, 12, 24, and 36 was 63.5%, 77.7%, 78.7%, and 76.0%, respectively. Compared with reimbursed patients, nonreimbursed patients had a significantly lower baseline PASI and a shorter mean disease duration of psoriasis; they were more frequently biologic-naïve, had used less prior traditional antipsoriatic drugs and were more likely to be treated with secukinumab 150 mg. The effectiveness of secukinumab in nonreimbursed patients was superior despite higher discontinuation rates. Compared with patients without prior biologic failure, patients with prior biologic failure had a significantly lower mean PASI improvement at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. The decline in response rates to secukinumab tended to be more pronounced for patients who failed ustekinumab than tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors. Moreover, the number of prior biologic failures was associated with a decreased response rate and increased likelihood of secondary loss of effectiveness of secukinumab therapy.ConclusionIn a real-life clinical setting, the characteristics of nonreimbursed patients receiving secukinumab treatment differed from those of reimbursed patients. The PASI improvement for secukinumab was substantial but lower than that in clinical trials. The number and classes of prior biologic failures impact the treatment response to secukinumab.

Project description:BackgroundSevere asthma is a major cause of morbidity. Some patients may benefit from biological therapies. Most evaluations of these treatments are derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but few patients are eligible for these trials. Studies involving more diverse groups of participants exist, but there is a lack of precise pooled estimates.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to evaluate the real-world efficacy of recently and nearly licensed biological therapies for severe asthma to assess the generalizability of the RCT data.MethodsClinical outcomes including exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid usage, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 ) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were examined. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).ResultsA total of 21 studies examining biologicals in real-world settings were identified; they mostly focused on benralizumab and mepolizumab. The introduction of biologicals reduced the annualzsed exacerbation rate significantly by -3.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] -4.53, -3.04), -3.17 (95% CI -3.74, -2.59) and -6.72 (95% CI -8.47, -4.97) with benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab, respectively. Likewise, improvements were observed in FEV1 (0.17 L 95% CI 0.11, 0.24) and FeNO (-14.23 ppb 95% CI -19.71, -8.75) following the treatment with mepolizumab. After treatment with benralizumab, there was an increase in FEV1 (0.21 L 95% CI 0.08, 0.34).ConclusionsThese data demonstrate that anti-IL5 biologicals may improve the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs. The data were mainly retrospective and unadjusted, so estimated effect sizes may not be reliable. More data are needed to acquire accurate effect estimates in different subpopulations of patients.

Project description:PurposePatients with severe asthma are eligible for asthma-specific biologics as add-on therapies, such as mepolizumab and omalizumab, when optimized controller therapies are unable to control their symptoms. However, few real-world data are available to describe the characteristics and associated economic burden of patients considered to be candidates for mepolizumab or omalizumab therapy.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study investigated patients with asthma (≥12 years of age) identified at the time of first mepolizumab or omalizumab administration (index date) in the MarketScan™ Commercial Database. Data were collected during the 12-month period before the index date (baseline period) for two mutually exclusive patient groups (patients prescribed mepolizumab and omalizumab, respectively). Baseline demographics, history of exacerbations, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and medical costs were investigated.ResultsIn total, 413 and 1,834 patients who had been prescribed mepolizumab or omalizumab, respectively, were identified. During the baseline period, patients prescribed mepolizumab experienced more exacerbations (81.4% vs 57.5%, P<0.001), had higher asthma-related HCRU for outpatient services (all P<0.01), and had higher total asthma-related healthcare costs (US$11,000 vs US$7,400, P<0.001) compared with patients prescribed omalizumab. Allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and chronic idiopathic urticaria were more common among patients prescribed omalizumab vs mepolizumab. In contrast, sinusitis, nasal polyps, and comorbid COPD were more common among patients prescribed mepolizumab vs omalizumab. Prescriptions of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) with long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and ICS/LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonist triple therapy during the baseline period were higher among patients prescribed mepolizumab vs omalizumab (80.4% vs 56.8% and 27.1% vs 14.4%, respectively, both P<0.001).ConclusionIn the 12 months prior to initiation of asthma-specific biologics, patients prescribed mepolizumab had a different prevalence of certain comorbidities, higher disease burden, higher HCRU, and higher healthcare costs compared with patients prescribed omalizumab.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The promise of real-world evidence (RWE) is especially relevant to pediatrics, where medicines prescribed for children are often used without evidence derived from randomized clinical trials. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this systematic review was to describe the state of RWE in pediatrics by identifying observational studies published during 2016 that used RWE to assess medication safety or effectiveness in children. METHODS:An electronic search of PubMed was combined with an extended search of references within systematic reviews and expert suggestions. Studies were included if they reported on an infant or child under 18 years with exposure to medications; assessed safety or effectiveness; specified a comparison or control group, and were published in English in 2016. Data extraction was conducted by one team member using a standardized form and reviewed by a second team member. Study quality was assessed using the GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies. RESULTS:After removing duplicates, 915 citations were screened and 29 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most of the eligible studies relied on primary data collection or chart review at a single institution and did not use the growing number of administrative or electronic health record databases available. One-quarter of the studies did not use well-established statistical methods to control for confounders. No single disease group or medication predominated, and age groups ranged from infants to adolescents. CONCLUSIONS:A small body of observational studies published in 2016 were categorized by the study team as using real-world data to assess medication safety or effectiveness in children. Studies varied in age groups, diseases or conditions, and methods, and may not have fully met the FDA definition of RWE. Our review indicates that the use of RWE is not fully developed in pediatrics, and suggests an opportunity to further develop capabilities and more fully leverage administrative and electronic health record databases to study medication safety and effectiveness in children. Our systematic review appears generalizable to pediatrics broadly, and documents that the high level of activity in RWE in general has had less of an impact on pediatrics.