Trends in Omalizumab Utilization for Asthma: Evidence of Suboptimal Patient Selection

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Suppression Testing as an Adherence Screening Tool Among Patients With Difficult-to-Control Asthma

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of adults on long-term asthma medication are nonadherent. Current methods to detect nonadherence have had limited effect. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide suppression testing (FeNOSuppT) has demonstrated clinical effectiveness as an adherence screening tool to detect poor adherence to inhaled corticosteroids in difficult-to-control asthma prior to initiation of expensive biologic therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Estimate the cost effectiveness and budget impact of FeNOSuppT as a screen prior to the initiation of biologic therapy among U.S. adults with difficult-to-control asthma and high fractional exhaled nitric oxide (≥45 ppb).

METHODS

A decision tree simulated the progression of a cohort of patients over a 1-year time horizon into 1 of 3 states ([1] discharged from or [2] remain in specialist care; or [3] progress to biologics). Two strategies, with and without FeNOSuppT, were examined and the incremental net monetary benefit estimated using a discount rate of 3% and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analysis and a budget impact analysis were also undertaken.

RESULTS

In the baseline scenario, FeNOSuppT prior to the initiation of biologic therapy was associated with lower costs ($4,435/patient) and fewer QALYs (0.0023 QALY/patient) compared with no FeNOSuppT over 1 year and was considered cost effective (incremental net monetary benefit = $4,207). The FeNOSuppT was consistently found to be cost effective across a range of scenarios and in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Assuming differential levels of FeNOSuppT uptake (20%-100%), this was associated with budget savings ranging from USD $5 million to $27 million.

CONCLUSIONS

The FeNOSuppT is likely to be cost effective as a protocol-driven, objective, biomarker-based tool for identifying nonadherence in difficult-to-control asthma. This cost effectiveness is driven by cost savings from patients not progressing to expensive biologic therapy.

Factors Associated With Asthma Biologic Prescribing and Primary Adherence Among Adults in a Large Health System

BACKGROUND

The availability of asthma biologics may not benefit all patients equally.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify patient characteristics associated with asthma biologic prescribing, primary adherence, and effectiveness.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study of 9,147 adults with asthma who established care with a Penn Medicine asthma subspecialist was conducted using Electronic Health Record data from January 1, 2016, to October 18, 2021. Multivariable regression models were used to identify factors associated with (1) receipt of a new biologic prescription; (2) primary adherence, defined as receiving a dose in the year after receiving the prescription, and (3) oral corticosteroid (OCS) bursts in the year after the prescription.

RESULTS

Factors associated with a new prescription, which was received by 335 patients, included being a woman (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; P = .002), smoking currently (OR 0.50; P = .04), having an asthma hospitalization in the prior year (OR 2.91; P < .001), and having 4+ OCS bursts in the prior year (OR 3.01; P < .001). Reduced primary adherence was associated with Black race (incidence rate ratio 0.85; P < .001) and Medicaid insurance (incidence rate ratio 0.86; P < .001), although most in these groups, 77.6% and 74.3%, respectively, still received a dose. Nonadherence was associated with patient-level barriers in 72.2% of cases and health insurance denial in 22.2%. Having more OCS bursts after receiving a biologic prescription was associated with Medicaid insurance (OR 2.69; P = .047) and biologic days covered (OR 0.32 for 300-364 d vs 14-56 d; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large health system, primary adherence to asthma biologics varied by race and insurance type, whereas nonadherence was primarily explained by patient-level barriers.

Epidemiology, Treatment and Health Care Resource Use of Patients with severe Asthma in Germany – a retrospective Claims Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma causes various clinical symptoms, including unpredictable severe exacerbations, and even though most patients can achieve a reasonable disease control due to adequate treatment, some patients do not. This study seeks to describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and treatment of asthma and severe asthma patients in Germany.

METHOD

A retrospective claims data analysis has been conducted on adult asthma patients and a subset of patients with severe asthma, identified during July 2017 - June 2018. A proxy was used to identify severe asthma patients based on therapy options recommended within the German treatment guideline for treating these patients. These include (i) biologics, (ii) medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in conjunction with LABA/montelukast and antibiotics/oral corticosteroids (OCS), and (iii) long-term OCS therapy. HCRU and treatment of patients were observed during a 1-year follow-up period (July 2018 - June 2019).

RESULTS

The study included 388 932 adult asthma patients (prevalence: 7.90%), with 2.51%-12.88% affected by severe asthma (depending on the definition). 22.60% of all asthma patients experienced hospitalizations (severe asthma: 36.11%). Furthermore, 13.59% received OCS (severe asthma: 39.91%), but only 0.18% (severe asthma: 1.25%) received biologics. Only 23.95% (severe asthma: 41.17%) visited a pulmonologist.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of severe asthma patients receive long-term OCS therapy. However, less than 50% have seen a pulmonologist who would typically seek a change in treatment to avoid the long-term consequences of OCS. To optimize the treatment of severe asthma in Germany, better referral of these patients to specialists is needed and considering potential treatment alternatives.

Assessment of Real-World Escalation to Biologics in US Patients With Asthma

BACKGROUND

Previous studies indicate that suboptimal medication adherence may contribute to uncontrolled asthma. Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines recommend treatment escalation to biologics for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite adherence to high-dose maintenance medication and who have eosinophilic/allergic biomarkers or require maintenance oral corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the clinical status of patients with asthma escalated to biologic therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective claims database analysis enrolled US patients with asthma who were escalated to biologics between January 2016 and June 2020. Exacerbations, control status, GINA step, and maintenance medication adherence during the 12 months before biologic therapy initiation were analyzed. Asthma control was assessed using both the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) and Stempel criteria. Adherence was defined as the proportion of days covered (PDC) by maintenance medication claims.

RESULTS

Of 1786 patients escalated to biologics, 506 were included for analysis. During the 12 months before escalation, 346 patients had confirmed exacerbations. Uncontrolled asthma status was estimated in 55% and 70% of patients (ERS/ATS and Stempel criteria, respectively). GINA step was inferred for 395 patients: 154 were at step 2, 11 at step 3, 104 at step 4, and 126 at step 5. Of 403 patients with maintenance medication claims, 63% had suboptimal maintenance medication adherence (PDC <80%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, most patients initiating biologic therapy had mild-to-moderate asthma or suboptimal maintenance medication adherence, possibly indicating inappropriate escalation. Incorporating objective medication adherence monitoring into existing guidelines may reduce inappropriate escalation to biologics.

Racial Inequities in Asthma Care

Racial inequities in asthma care are evolving as a recognized factor in long-standing inequities in asthma outcomes (e.g., hospitalization and mortality). Little research has been conducted regarding the presence or absence of racial inequities among patients seen in asthma specialist settings, this is an important area of future research given that asthma specialist care is recommended for patients experiencing the poor asthma outcomes disproportionately experienced by Black and Hispanic patients. This study provides a systematic review of racial asthma care inequities in asthma epidemiology, clinical assessment, medication prescription, and asthma specialist referral practices.

Global Variability in Administrative Approval Prescription Criteria for Biologic Therapy in Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Regulatory bodies have approved five biologics for severe asthma. However, regional differences in accessibility may limit the global potential for personalized medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To compare global differences in ease of access to biologics.

METHODS

In April 2021, national prescription criteria for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were reviewed by severe asthma experts collaborating in the International Severe Asthma Registry. Outcomes (per country, per biologic) were (1) country-specific prescription criteria and (2) development of the Biologic Accessibility Score (BACS). The BACS composite score incorporates 10 prescription criteria, each with a maximum score of 10 points. Referenced to European Medicines Agency marketing authorization specifications, a higher score reflects easier access.

RESULTS

Biologic prescription criteria differed substantially across 28 countries from five continents. Blood eosinophil count thresholds (usually ≥300 cells/μL) and exacerbations were key requirements for anti-IgE/anti-IL-5/5R prescriptions in around 80% of licensed countries. Most countries (40% for dupilumab to 54% for mepolizumab) require two or more moderate or severe exacerbations, whereas numbers ranged from none to four. Moreover, 0% (for reslizumab) to 21% (for omalizumab) of countries required long-term oral corticosteroid use. The BACS highlighted marked between-country differences in ease of access. For omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, only two, one, four, and seven countries, respectively, scored equal or higher than the European Medicines Agency reference BACS. For reslizumab, all countries scored lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some differences were expected in country-specific biologic prescription criteria and ease of access, the substantial differences found in the current study present a challenge to implementing precision medicine across the world.

2021 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of severe asthma

Advances in the understanding that severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease and in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of asthma, with the identification of different phenotypes and endotypes, have allowed new approaches for the diagnosis and characterization of the disease and have resulted in relevant changes in pharmacological management. In this context, the definition of severe asthma has been established, being differentiated from difficult-to-control asthma. These recommendations address this topic and review advances in phenotyping, use of biomarkers, and new treatments for severe asthma. Emphasis is given to topics regarding personalized management of the patient and selection of biologicals, as well as the importance of evaluating the response to treatment. These recommendations apply to adults and children with severe asthma and are targeted at physicians involved in asthma treatment. A panel of 17 Brazilian pulmonologists was invited to review recent evidence on the diagnosis and management of severe asthma, adapting it to the Brazilian reality. Each of the experts was responsible for reviewing a topic or question relevant to the topic. In a second phase, four experts discussed and structured the texts produced, and, in the last phase, all experts reviewed and approved the present manuscript and its recommendations.

Characteristics of new adult users of mepolizumab with asthma in the USA

BACKGROUND

In the USA, over 25 million people have asthma; 5%-10% of cases are severe. Mepolizumab (Nucala) is an interleukin-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody; it was approved by the FDA in 2015 as add-on maintenance treatment of severe asthma for patients aged ≥12 years with an eosinophilic phenotype.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Describe baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of new US adult mepolizumab users 2015-2019, (2) describe asthma medication use in the 12 months preceding initiation of and concomitant with mepolizumab and (3) assess mepolizumab adherence, persistence and discontinuation patterns in 12 months postinitiation.

METHODS

We conducted a new-user observational cohort study using data from Aetna, a CVS Health Company, HealthCore (Anthem), Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Curated administrative claims data in the FDA Sentinel System common data model format and publicly available Sentinel analytical tools were used to query the databases. We included adults who initiated mepolizumab in 2015-2019 with an asthma diagnosis in the preceding 12 months and no evidence of cystic fibrosis. We examined age, sex, comorbid conditions, asthma medication use and severe asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

We identified 3496 adults (mean age 54.2 years, SD 12.5 years) who initiated mepolizumab. In the 12 months before mepolizumab initiation, 22% had received inhaled corticosteroids, 46% had inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonists, 72.6% had leukotriene antagonists, 38% had long-acting muscarinic antagonist, 18% had omalizumab,<1% had reslizumab, dupilumab or benralizumab. In the previous 12 months, 70% had a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, 32% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 17% eosinophilia and 3% eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Further, 56% had an asthma-related ambulatory visit, 73%≥1 course of oral corticosteroids lasting 3-27 days, 10% an asthma-related emergency department visit and 22% an asthma-related hospitalisation. In the 12 months following initiation, the mean proportion of days covered was 70%, and reductions in the average mean dispensings of rescue oral corticosteriods (35%) and omalizumab (61%) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with asthma treated with mepolizumab had varying levels of healthcare utilisation and we observed evidence of mepolizumab use in patients without severe asthma.

Utility of fractional exhaled nitric oxide suppression as a prediction tool for progression to biologic therapy

Rationale

The utility of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (F _ENO) suppression (FeNOSuppT) to identify non-adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment has previously been reported, but whether it can predict clinical outcome remains unclear.

Objectives

We examined the utility of FeNOSuppT in prediction of progression to biologic agents or discharge from specialist care.

Methods

FeNOSuppT was measured at home using remote monitoring technology of inhaler use alongside daily F _ENO measurement over 7 days. Long-term clinical outcomes in terms of progression to biologic agent or discharge from specialist care were compared for non-suppressors and suppressors.

Measurements and main results

Of the 162 subjects, 135 successfully completed the test with 81 (60%) positive F _ENO suppression tests. Subjects with a negative FeNOSuppT were more likely to proceed to biologic therapy (39 of 54 patients, 72%) compared to those with a positive FeNOSuppT (35 of 81 patients, 43%, p=0.001). In subjects with a positive FeNOSuppT, predictors of progression to biologic therapy included higher dose of maintenance steroid at initial assessment and prior intensive care unit admission. These subjects had a significant rise in F _ENO between post-suppression test and follow-up (median, 33 (IQR 25-55) versus 71 (IQR 24-114); p=0.009), which was not explained by altered corticosteroid dose.

Conclusions

A negative FeNOSuppT correlates with progression to biologic therapy. A positive FeNOSuppT, with subsequent maintenance of "optimised" F _ENO, predicts a subgroup of patients in whom asthma control is preserved with adherence to high-dose ICS/long-acting β2 agonist and who can be discharged from specialist care.

Monoclonal antibody treatment for severe uncontrolled asthma in Spain: analytical map

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mABs) have become available to treat more efficiently patients with severe uncontrolled asthma (SUA). However, the use of mABs is lower than expected given the prevalence of SUA, with significant disparities in the use of these treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the proportion of patients with SUA treated with mABs in Spain, and to analyze some of the factors that could determine these prescription patterns.

METHODS

An analysis was performed on the data provided from the Hospitals National Health System (NHS) 2018 catalogue where Chest Diseases Department and a Hospital Pharmacy were available. Random sampling was performed to determine the sample size, stratifying proportionally by geographic area and hospital level. Characteristics of the participating sites, as well as the prescribing of mABs were collected, which included geographic area, hospital levels, prescribing medical specialities, types of clinics, and mABs prescribed.

RESULTS

Data from 90 hospitals were analyzed (Response rate 64.3%). Level 4 hospitals, the Canary Islands geographical area, and the presence of a high complexity Asthma Healthcare Unit (ACU) were associated with a higher probability that the SUA was treated with mABs.

CONCLUSION

The map of the prescribing of mABs for SUA in Spain shows a significant variation by geographic area, hospital level, type of clinic, and the accreditation level of the ACUs. At the current time, there appears to be significant under-prescribing of these treatments.

Attitudes of Croatian pulmonologists concerning obstacles to earlier, more appropriate use of biologics in severe asthma: Survey results

AIMS

Biologics have been proven efficacious for patients with severe asthma (SA). It is essential to diagnose such individuals correctly. This study was designed to survey pulmonologists to identify barriers to early diagnosis and subsequent appropriate use of biologics for SA in Croatia.

METHODS

A pulmonologist group with expertise in SA developed the initial list of questions, with the final questionnaire created according to a 2-round Delphi method. The resulting survey consisted of 23 items consequently divided into 4 domains: 1) Pulmonologists' demographics and professional experiences; 2) Concerns about asthma management; 3) Attitudes toward SA diagnosis; and 4) Beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of biologics in managing SA. The given answers represented the respondents' estimates.

RESULTS

Eighty-four surveys were analyzed, with pulmonologists observing that general practitioners often inaccurately diagnose asthma and treat acute exacerbations. Although specialist centers are capably and correctly equipped, the time to diagnose patients with SA is approximately 3.5 months, with initial use of biologics delayed an additional 2 months. The primary indications for prescribing biologics are conventional therapy with oral glucocorticoids (91.7%) and frequent acute exacerbations (82.1%). In addition to improper diagnosis (64.3%), many patients with SA do not receive the indicated biologics owing to strict administrative directives for reimbursement (70.2%) or limited hospital resources (57.1%).

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this survey include the subjective nature of the collected data, the relatively small sample size, and the lack of the biologic efficacy evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Croatian pulmonologists observed that a significant number of patients with SA who are eligible for biologics are not prescribed them, largely because of an inaccurate and/or delayed diagnosis, a delayed referral to a specialist center, highly restrictive criteria for reimbursement, and/or institutional budgetary limitations.

Measuring adherence to therapy in airways disease

Non-adherence to medication is one of the most significant issues in all airways disease and can have a major impact on disease control as well as on unscheduled healthcare utilisation. It is vital that clinicians can accurately determine a patient's level of adherence in order to ensure they are gaining the maximal benefit from their therapy and also to avoid any potential for unnecessary increases in therapy. It is essential that measurements of adherence are interpreted alongside biomarkers of mechanistic pathways to identify if improvements in medication adherence can influence disease control. In this review, the most common methods of measuring adherence are discussed. These include patient self-report, prescription record checks, canister weighing, dose counting, monitoring drug levels and electronic monitoring. We describe the uses and benefits of each method as well as potential shortcomings. The practical use of adherence measures with measurable markers of disease control is also discussed.

Educational aims

To understand the various methods available to measure adherence in airways disease.To learn how to apply these adherence measures in conjunction with clinical biomarkers in routine clinical care.

A randomised controlled trial of the effect of a connected inhaler system on medication adherence in uncontrolled asthmatic patients

Suboptimal adherence to maintenance therapy contributes to poor asthma control and exacerbations. This study evaluated the effect of different elements of a connected inhaler system (CIS), comprising clip-on inhaler sensors, a patient-facing app and a healthcare professional (HCP) dashboard, on adherence to asthma maintenance therapy.

This was an open-label, parallel-group, 6-month, randomised controlled trial in adults with uncontrolled asthma (asthma control test (ACT) score less than 20) on fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β-agonist maintenance therapy (n=437). All subjects received fluticasone furoate/vilanterol ELLIPTA dry-powder inhalers for maintenance and salbutamol/albuterol metered-dose inhalers for rescue, with a sensor attached to each inhaler. Participants were randomised to one of five CIS study arms (allocation ratio 1:1:1:1:1) reflecting the recipient of the data feedback from the sensors, as follows: 1) maintenance use to participants and HCPs (n=87); 2) maintenance use to participants (n=88); 3) maintenance and rescue use to participants and HCPs (n=88); 4) maintenance and rescue use to participants (n=88); and 5) no feedback (control) (n=86).

For the primary endpoint, observed mean±sd adherence to maintenance therapy over months 4–6 was 82.2±16.58% (n=83) in the “maintenance to participants and HCPs” arm and 70.8±27.30% (n=85) in the control arm. The adjusted least squares mean±se was 80.9±3.19% and 69.0±3.19%, respectively (study arm difference: 12.0%, 95% CI 5.2–18.8%; p<0.001). Adherence was also significantly greater in the other CIS arms versus the control arm. The mean percentage of rescue medication free days (months 4–6) was significantly greater in participants receiving data on their rescue use compared with controls. ACT scores improved in all study arms with no significant differences between groups.

A CIS can improve adherence to maintenance medication and reduce rescue medication use in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

In individuals with uncontrolled asthma, data feedback on maintenance therapy use from a connected inhaler system led to increased maintenance adherence and feedback on rescue medication usage led to more rescue-free days but did not improve asthma controlhttps://bit.ly/39kmVBA

Asthma Patients Who Stop Asthma Biologics Have a Similar Risk of Asthma Exacerbations as Those Who Continue Asthma Biologics

BACKGROUND

There is limited information about outcomes associated with stopping asthma biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes in people who stopped or continued asthma biologics.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of people with asthma who stopped or continued asthma biologics in the Optum Labs Database Warehouse, using a propensity matching method for case and control groups with the variables of age, sex, race, region, insurance, income, specialist access, Charlson comorbidity, specific medical conditions, pre-index exacerbation count, pre-index rescue inhaler pharmacy fills, and pre-index inhaled corticosteroid with or without long-acting β-agonist pharmacy fills. Primary outcome used to assess failure of stopping was an increase of 50% or more in the asthma exacerbation rate in the 6 months after discontinuing the biologic compared with the 6-month period before biologic initiation.

RESULTS

Among a cohort of 4960 asthma biologic users, 1249 were observed to stop use after 6 to 12 months of use. We identified a matched cohort of 1247 stoppers and 1247 people who continued biologic use for at least 18 months. In the first 6 months after stopping or sham stopping, 10.2% of stoppers and 9.5% of continuers had an increase of 50% or more in asthma exacerbations. We found a similar adjusted odds of failing among stoppers and continuers (odds ratio = 1.085; 95% confidence interval, 0.833-1.413).

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in asthma exacerbations is infrequently observed in people who stopped asthma biologics and was observed at similar rates as in matched controls who continued asthma biologics.

EAACI Biologicals Guidelines-Recommendations for severe asthma

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. Management is difficult, due to disease heterogeneity, co-morbidities, complexity in care pathways and differences between national or regional healthcare systems. Better understanding of the mechanisms has enabled a stratified approach to the management of severe asthma, supporting the use of targeted treatments with biologicals. However, there are still many issues that require further clarification. These include selection of a certain biological (as they all target overlapping disease phenotypes), the definition of response, strategies to enhance the responder rate, the duration of treatment and its regimen (in the clinic or home-based) and its cost-effectiveness. The EAACI Guidelines on the use of biologicals in severe asthma follow the GRADE approach in formulating recommendations for each biological and each outcome. In addition, a management algorithm for the use of biologicals in the clinic is proposed, together with future approaches and research priorities.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Little is known about adherence to asthma biologics.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) associated with subsequent asthma biologic adherence?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed individuals with asthma who started asthma biologics in the OptumLab Data Warehouse and used that data until October 2019. We calculated proportion days covered (PDC) for ICS ± long-acting β-agonists in the 6 months before and after asthma biologics were started and asthma biologic PDC for the first 6 months of use. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75, ICS PDC ≥0.75 during the 6-month period after asthma biologic were started, and achievement of a ≥50% reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use.

RESULTS

We identified 5,319 people who started asthma biologics. The mean PDC for asthma biologics was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75-0.77) in the first 6 months after starting, higher than the mean PDCs for ICS in the 6 months before (0.44 [95% CI, 0.43-0.45]) and after (0.40 [95% CI, 0.39-0.40]) starting the asthma biologic. PDC ≥0.75 for ICS 6 months before index biologic use is associated with PDC for asthma biologics ≥0.75 (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43) and for ICS during the first 6 months of biologic use (OR, 9.93; 95% CI, 8.55-11.53). Neither ICS PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14) nor asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36) is associated with a statistically significant reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use among people with any exacerbation in the 6 months before first use.

INTERPRETATION

Adherence to asthma biologic is higher than to ICS and is associated with different factors.

The validity of diagnostic algorithms to identify asthma patients in healthcare administrative databases: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

To review the available evidence supporting the validity of algorithms to identify asthma patients in healthcare administrative databases.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on multiple databases from inception to March 2020 to identify studies that reported the validity of case-finding asthma algorithms applied to healthcare administrative data. Following an initial screening of abstracts, two investigators independently assessed the full text of studies which met the pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data on study population and algorithm characteristics were extracted. A revised version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias and generalizability of studies.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. Algorithms which incorporated ≥1 diagnostic code for asthma over a 1-year period appeared to be valid in both adult and pediatric populations (sensitivity ≥ 85%; specificity ≥ 89%; PPV ≥ 70%). The validity was enhanced when: (1) the time frame to capture asthma cases was increased to two years; (2) ≥2 asthma diagnostic codes were considered; and (3) when diagnoses were recorded by a pulmonologist. Algorithms which integrated pharmacy claims data appeared to correctly identify asthma patients; however, the extent to which asthma medications can improve the validity remains unclear. The quality of several studies was high, although disease progression bias and biases related to self-reported data was observed in some studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare administrative databases are adequate sources to identify asthma patients. More restrictive definitions based on both asthma diagnoses and asthma medications may enhance validity, although further research is required to confirm this hypothesis.

Clinical use of biologics for asthma treatment by allergy specialists: A questionnaire survey

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with emerging phenotypes and endotypes. At present, 5 distinct biologics are Food and Drug Administration-approved as an add-on therapy for difficult-to-control type 2-high asthma. Because allergy specialists manage a spectrum of diseases for which biologics may be appropriate, it is important to understand their prescribing patterns.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the allergist's use of biologics in the treatment of asthma, including barriers, preferences, indications for prescribing, measures to determine effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A survey was performed among allergists using a semistructured 10-item self-administered web-based questionnaire and the responses were analyzed using one-way frequencies and multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

The response rate was approximately 9%. Omalizumab was the most prescribed biologic for asthma (98%), and "uncontrolled asthma despite adherence to controller medication" was the most common reason. The common selection criteria among the biologics included elevated peripheral eosinophil count, asthma with nasal polyps, and asthma type (type 1; type 2; nonallergic). A decreased exacerbation frequency was the best standard to determine the efficacy among biologics. Benralizumab was considered the most cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

This study represents one of the largest surveys among allergy specialists regarding the real-world use of asthma biologics. It seems that there has been reasonably good dissemination and application of current guidelines among allergists based on prescribing patterns. However, their responses reflect the need for the continued modification of asthma guidelines that incorporate novel biologics and other pathway-specific agents into step therapy. As clinical phenotypes and predictive biomarkers develop, allergy specialists will be better prepared to practice precision medicine that optimizes the use of asthma biologics.

Low adherence to inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists and biologic treatment in severe asthmatics

Eligibility criteria for a biologic treatment for severe asthma include poor disease control despite a full medication plan according to Global Initiative for Asthma steps 4–5 [1]. Adherence to inhaled therapy should be verified as part of that prescription requirement [2]. In fact, it has been demonstrated that poor adherence is a major cause of uncontrolled asthma, regardless of its severity [3]. Furthermore, biologics do not exert a disease-modifying effect [4]; in contrast to allergen immunotherapy, which is able to permanently modulate the way the immune system reacts to allergens beyond the immunotherapy treatment course [5], biologic therapy withdrawal usually leads to asthma relapse [4]. Thus, a low adherence rate to inhaled treatment in patients undergoing biologic therapy raises some issues related to sustainability.

Less than half of severe asthmatic patients show a >80% adherence rate to inhaled treatment just before and during biologic therapy. This has implications in biologic treatment sustainability and disease prevalence estimation.http://bit.ly/3cRTJB0

Treatment Benefit with Omalizumab in Children by Indicators of Asthma Severity

BACKGROUND

Greater severity in childhood asthma negatively impacts functioning and quality of life. Omalizumab is effective in children aged 6 years or older with moderate to severe persistent asthma, but predicting responsiveness in severe disease requires further study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess response to omalizumab treatment among children using indicators of asthma severity.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses of randomized placebo-controlled studies of omalizumab (Inner-City Anti-IgE Therapy for Asthma [ICATA], IA05, and Preventative Omalizumab or Step-up Therapy for Fall Exacerbations [PROSE]) stratified by body mass index, eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels, and baseline severity indicators (baseline percent predicted FEV₁, previous hospitalizations, asthma exacerbations). Poisson regression analysis examined exacerbation rate reductions for body mass index, biomarkers, and severity indicators.

RESULTS

Children aged 6 to 11 years in IA05 (N = 576; 56% white, 17% black, 26% other/missing), ICATA (N = 237; 55% black, 43% Hispanic), and PROSE (N = 342; 59% black, 35% Hispanic) were included. Trends indicative of greater exacerbation rate change ([omalizumab - placebo]/placebo) were observed for low baseline lung function (IA05 percent predicted FEV₁: <90%, 36% reduction, 95% CI, -53.3 to -13.5; ≥90%, 22% reduction, 95% CI, -52.1 to 27.5), previous hospitalizations (ICATA: 46% reduction with, 95% CI, -69.7 to -3.9; 24% reduction without, 95% CI, -48.1 to 10.3), frequent baseline exacerbations (IA05: ≥3, 42% reduction, 95% CI, -60.4 to -14.1; <3, 20% reduction, 95% CI, -45.2 to -15.9), and high baseline eosinophil count (IA05: ≥300 cells/μL, 39% reduction, 95% CI, -56.4 to -14.7; <300 cells/μL, 5% reduction, 95% CI, -40.6 to 52.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab reduces exacerbations in children with moderate to severe persistent allergic asthma, and may provide greater benefit in children with more severe asthma subtypes.

Usage Patterns of Short-Acting β2-Agonists and Inhaled Corticosteroids in Asthma: A Targeted Literature Review

Despite the availability of effective asthma treatments, some patients are poorly controlled because of overreliance on short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs) and underuse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). To identify patient characteristics and outcomes associated with SABA overreliance and ICS underuse, we conducted a targeted literature review of the quantitative evidence on asthma medication use. Articles evaluating SABA and/or ICS use in patients with asthma (aged ≥12 years), published between January 2012 and March 2018, were identified using MEDLINE and EMBASE. We observed that studies classified SABA usage as "overuse," "high use," "excess use," "extreme overuse," "suboptimal use," and "inappropriate use." Multiple thresholds were used to define overuse of SABA (≥3 to ≥12 canisters/y). SABA overreliance was prevalent, with approximately 20% of adults using 3 or more canisters per year (≥12 inhalations/wk). Similarly, inappropriate ICS use, classified as "suboptimal," "high use," "underuse," and "unlicensed use," was defined by varying thresholds. Specific patient populations, such as older adults, smokers, and patients with low income, were more susceptible to SABA overreliance and ICS underuse. Overreliance on SABAs was associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations, asthma-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and asthma-related costs. These findings emphasize the prevalence and related burden of SABA overreliance at the potential expense of appropriate ICS use.

Disease Burden and Long-Term Risk of Persistent Very Poorly Controlled Asthma: TENOR II

BACKGROUND

Severe/difficult-to-treat disease occurs in 5% to 10% of patients with asthma, but accounts for more than 50% of related economic costs. Understanding factors associated with persistent very poorly controlled (VPC) asthma may improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize persistent VPC asthma after more than 10 years of standard of care.

METHODS

The Epidemiology and Natural history of asthma: Outcomes and treatment Regimens (TENOR) II (N = 341) was a multicenter, observational study of patients with severe/difficult-to-treat asthma with a single, cross-sectional visit more than 10 years after TENOR I. Persistent VPC asthma was defined as VPC asthma at TENOR I and TENOR II enrollment; without VPC asthma was defined as well- or not well-controlled asthma at either or both visits. Multivariable logistic regression assessed long-term predictors of persistent VPC asthma using TENOR I baseline variables.

RESULTS

Of 327 patients, nearly half (48.0%, n = 157) had persistent VPC asthma. Comorbidities and asthma triggers were more frequent in patients with persistent VPC asthma than in patients without VPC asthma. Total geometric mean IgE was higher in patients with persistent VPC asthma (89.3 IU/mL vs 55.7 IU/mL); there was no difference in eosinophil levels. Lung function was lower in patients with persistent VPC asthma (mean % predicted pre- and postbronchodilator FEV₁, 63.0% vs 82.8% and 69.6% vs 87.2%, respectively). Exacerbations in the previous year were more likely in patients with persistent VPC asthma (29.7% vs 9.0%, respectively). Predictors of persistent VPC asthma were black versus white race/ethnicity, allergic trigger count (4 vs 0), systemic corticosteroid use, and postbronchodilator FEV₁ (per 10% decrease).

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of persistent VPC asthma is high in severe/difficult-to-treat disease; management of modifiable risk factors, maximization of lung function, and trigger avoidance may improve outcomes.

Critical Points on the Use of Biologicals in Allergic Diseases and Asthma

Improved understanding of the contribution of immune-inflammatory mechanisms in allergic diseases and asthma has encouraged development of biologicals and small molecules specifically targeting the innate and adaptive immune response. There are several critical points impacting the efficacy of this stratified approach, from the complexity of disease endotypes to the effectiveness in real-world settings. We discuss here how these barriers can be overcome to facilitate the development of implementation science for allergic diseases and asthma.

Real-life effectiveness of omalizumab in difficult-to-treat versus severe asthma: a national cohort study in Belgium

Background

Guidelines recommend omalizumab in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. We investigated real-life use of omalizumab, the proportion of patients fulfilling eligibility criteria, its costs and its effectiveness.

Method

In a cohort of asthma patients initiating treatment with omalizumab in Belgium between 2010 and 2016, we investigated fulfilment of eligibility criteria (chronic use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and ≥2 severe asthma exacerbations in previous year), and compared hospitalisations and systemic corticosteroid consumption in the year before and after omalizumab initiation. We computed healthcare costs in the respective time periods and compared the cost per prevented hospitalisation in patients fulfilling eligibility criteria versus those who did not.

Results

Between 2010 and 2016, omalizumab treatment was initiated in 2068 patients with asthma; only 24% fulfilled the eligibility criteria, mainly due to nonadherence to high-dose ICSs + LABAs. The proportion of patients hospitalised for asthma decreased from 41% to 21% in eligible patients (absolute risk reduction, 20%), whereas the absolute risk reduction was 5% (from 19% to 14%) in noneligible patients. The cost per prevented hospitalisation was €44 238 versus €139 495, respectively. Chronic use of systemic corticosteroids was discontinued in 35% of eligible patients versus 15% of noneligible patients.

Conclusion

In Belgium, omalizumab is mostly initiated in uncontrolled asthma patients who are nonadherent to ICSs + LABAs. Omalizumab decreases hospitalisations and the use of systemic corticosteroids, but at a high cost. Careful management of patients with difficult-to-treat asthma should be a priority before prescribing omalizumab.

Trends and Disparities in Asthma Biologic Use in the United States

BACKGROUND

From 2003 to 2015, only 1 biologic was approved for the treatment of moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Since 2015, 4 new asthma biologics were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends and disparities of asthma biologic use in the United States from 2003 to 2018.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using a cohort developed from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Prevalent and incident asthma biologic users were identified, and characteristics of users and nonusers were analyzed using regression analysis. Clinician prescribing behavior was described.

RESULTS

Use of biologic medications remains uncommon among individuals with asthma, with prevalence peaking in 2006 at 3 in 1000 individuals with asthma. Several factors are associated with a higher likelihood of asthma biologic use: middle age, higher income, commercial insurance, and access to a specialist. Most clinicians (65%) in the cohort prescribed only 1 biologic.

CONCLUSIONS

We report low overall use of asthma biologics and evidence of disparities in access to asthma biologics.

Shadow cost of oral corticosteroids-related adverse events: A pharmacoeconomic evaluation applied to real-life data from the Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI) registry

BACKGROUND

Asthma is one of the most common non-communicable respiratory diseases, affecting about 6% of the general population. Severe asthma, even if afflicts a minority of asthmatics, drives the majority of costs of the disease. The aim of this study is to create a pharmacoeconomic model to predict the costs of corticosteroid-related adverse events in severe asthmatics and applying it to the first published epidemiologic data from the Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI) registry.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare System (INHS). Model inputs, derived from literature, included: asthma epidemiology data, frequency of adverse events, percentage of severe asthma treated with OCS and adverse event cost (Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) national tariffs). We estimated costs per different patient groups: non-asthma controls, mild/moderate and severe asthmatics. Final results report estimated direct cost per patient and total direct cost for overall target population, showing economic impact related to corticosteroid complication.

RESULTS

Based on epidemiological data input, in Italy, asthmatic subjects resulted about 3,999,600, of which 199,980 with severe asthma. The number of patients with severe asthma OCS-treated was estimated at 123,988. Compared to the non-asthma control cohort and to that with moderate asthma annual cost per severe asthmatic patient resulted respectively about €892 and €606 higher, showing a corticosteroids shadow cost ranging from 45% to 30%.Applying the cost per patient to the target population identified for Italy, the budget impact model estimated a total annual cost related to OCS-related adverse events of €242.7 million for severe asthmatics. In respect with non-asthmatic and moderate population, an incremental expenditure of about € 110.6 million and €75.2, respectively, were shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides the first estimates of additional healthcare costs related to corticosteroid induced adverse events in severe asthma patient. Budget impact model results highlighted the relevant economic impact of OCS-related adverse events in severe asthma patients. The future extrapolation of additional data from SANI registry will support the development of a model to investigate the role of corticosteroids sparing drugs.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2018 Highlights

A large number of clinically impactful studies and reviews were published in this journal in 2018. This article provides highlights of the original research published in 2018 issues of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunolgy: In Practice on the subjects of anaphylaxis, asthma, dermatitis, drug allergy, eosinophilic disorders, food allergy, immune deficiency, rhinitis, and urticaria/angioedema and mast cell disorders. Within each topic, practical aspects of diagnosis and management are emphasized. Treatments discussed include lifestyle modifications, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of patients.