Patient and physician preferences for attributes of biologic medications for severe asthma

Preferences for Biologic Treatments: A Discrete Choice Experiment Survey of Canadians with Severe Asthma

Purpose

The safety and efficacy of biologics for severe asthma have been demonstrated in clinical trials, and subsequent economic evaluations have established their value from a population perspective. Insight into patient preferences for attributes of biologic treatments can inform treatment-related decisions and promote adherence. However, such data are limited in Canada, and no willingness-to-pay (WTP) data exists. This study aimed to quantify the strength of preferences of those with severe asthma for attributes of biologic treatments.

Patients and Methods

Canadians with severe asthma completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 15 choice tasks and six biologic treatment attributes (improving daily activities, controlling other health conditions, frequency of administration, monthly out-of-pocket costs, reducing attack frequency, and reducing rescue inhaler use). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and WTP (the marginal rate of substitution of attributes for money) were estimated using a conditional logistic regression.

Results

Ninety-seven eligible and unique participants completed the survey (70.1% female; mean [SD] age: 54.6 [14.4]; 48.4% ever used biologics). A dramatic (vs slight) improvement in daily activities increased the odds of a biologic being preferred by 78% (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.48, 2.14), and a $100 increase in monthly out-of-pocket costs decreased the odds by 64% (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.61, 0.67). On average, WTP was an extra $129 CAD in monthly out-of-pocket costs for a dramatic (vs slight) improvement in daily activities. WTP for a hypothetical biologic treatment was an extra $430 CAD in monthly out-of-pocket costs.

Conclusion

Canadians with severe asthma prefer biologic treatments that dramatically improve daily activities and have lower out-of-pocket costs. This DCE is the first to include a cost attribute and estimate WTP. These data can help inform decision-making when considering access to new biologic treatments for severe asthma and clinicians when helping patients select treatments for severe asthma.

Disease Impact and Perception of Biologics in Adults with Type 2 Inflammation Respiratory Disease: International Survey Results

Purpose

There is a growing interest in developing approaches that reduce the impact of Type 2 inflammatory conditions, such as asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), on well-being. The aim of this international survey was to understand the impact of asthma and CRSwNP on people living with these conditions and to seek insight into the perception of biologics, which are often used to treat them.

Patients and Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted anonymously online from February to May 2024. International participants were recruited through social media and by Survey Monkey. Individuals aged ≥18 years diagnosed by a medical professional with asthma and/or CRSwNP who lived in the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, France, or Spain were eligible to participate.

Results

Of the 1566 survey participants (56.7% asthma, 24.8% CRSwNP, 18.5% both), 52.5% were female, and 65.3% were ages 25-54 years. Approximately two-thirds (64%) reported thinking once/day or at least once/week about managing their condition. Nearly half (44%) find it difficult to manage their disease. Of those currently using a biologic (14%), only 37% inject it themselves and feel confident doing so, and 42% felt it was a repeating reminder of their chronic condition. The top reason for stopping biologic treatment was that the injection/device was too difficult. The possibility of a lower frequency injection increased the likelihood participants would consider a biologic.

Conclusion

The study further raises awareness of the personal burden from asthma and CRSwNP and their associated treatments in different countries. Beyond the goal of achieving clinical disease control for these diseases, a holistic approach to care delivery should include culturally appropriate emotional health support to improve overall well-being. Access to biologics administered with less frequency may alleviate some of the burden of self-injection.

Real-World Biologic Use Patterns in Severe Asthma, 2015-2021: The CLEAR Study

Background

Biologics targeting immunoglobulin E, interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13 or IL-5 signaling are effective at treating severe asthma; however, individual patients' responses may be suboptimal, leading to therapy switching or stopping. The CLEAR study aimed to assess real-world biologic use patterns and associated clinical outcomes in patients receiving care for severe asthma.

Methods

CLEAR was a multicenter, observational study that included adults (≥18 years old) from 23 countries enrolled in the International Severe Asthma Registry between December 2015 and August 2021. Patients who initiated biologic therapy were categorized as continuing the initial biologic for 6 months, switching to another biologic within 6 months or stopping biologic treatment within 6 months. Outcomes were assessed using the closest available data to 12 months after biologic initiation, using propensity score-weighted multivariable regression models.

Results

Among 1,859 patients who initiated biologic therapy, 1,116 (60.0%) continued, 474 (25.5%) switched and 269 (14.5%) stopped treatment. Patients who switched or stopped therapy had a higher annualized asthma exacerbation rate post-initiation than those who continued (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] [95% confidence interval]: switched, 1.83 [1.51, 2.22]; stopped, 1.53 [1.19, 1.95]) and were more likely to have uncontrolled asthma at last assessment (adjusted odds ratio: switched, 5.40 [3.12, 9.33]; stopped, 4.02 [2.32, 6.98]). Compared with those who continued therapy, patients who switched had a higher long-term daily oral corticosteroid dose (adjusted β: 3.77 [1.71, 4.37] mg) and higher rates of hospitalizations (aIRR: 2.58 [1.52, 4.37]) and emergency room visits (aIRR: 2.12 [1.39, 3.24]).

Conclusion

Switching or stopping biologic therapy was associated with worse clinical outcomes than continuing the initial therapy.

Efficacy and safety of twice per year depemokimab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (ANCHOR-1 and ANCHOR-2): phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel trials

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) symptoms are frequently driven by type 2 inflammation. Depemokimab is the first ultra-long-acting biological drug engineered with enhanced interleukin-5 binding affinity, high potency, and an extended half-life, enabling twice per year dosing and sustained type 2 inflammation inhibition. The ANCHOR-1 and ANCHOR-2 trials investigated the efficacy and safety of depemokimab in people with CRSwNP.

METHODS

ANCHOR-1 and ANCHOR-2 were randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, replicate phase 3 trials conducted concurrently at 190 centres (hospitals, specialised clinics, and clinical trial sites) in 16 countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, the UK, and the USA). Individuals aged 18 years or older at the time of consent, with inadequately controlled CRSwNP, an endoscopic bilateral nasal polyps score of 5 or more, previous surgery for CRSwNP or previous treatment with or intolerance to systemic corticosteroids, and severe symptoms were stratified by previous CRSwNP surgery and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either depemokimab (100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo every 26 weeks (with standard of care). Allocation was computer generated. The trial sponsor, site staff, and participants were masked. The coprimary endpoints were change from baseline in total endoscopic nasal polyps score (0-8) at week 52 and mean nasal obstruction score (verbal response scale [0-3]) over weeks 49-52, assessed in the full analysis set. Integrated analyses were conducted. Adverse events on treatment and after treatment were monitored. The trials are complete and are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05274750 and NCT05281523).

FINDINGS

Between April 18, 2022, and Aug 7, 2023, 540 individuals were randomly assigned across ANCHOR-1 and ANCHOR-2; 528 participants comprised the full analysis set (depemokimab, n=272; placebo, n=256). Depemokimab had statistically significant improvements from baseline versus placebo in the coprimary endpoints of total nasal polyps score (treatment difference: ANCHOR-1, -0·7, 95% CI -1·1 to -0·3; p<0·001; ANCHOR-2, -0·6, -1·0 to -0·2; p=0·004; integrated, -0·7, -0·9 to -0·4) and mean nasal obstruction verbal response scale score (ANCHOR-1, -0·23, -0·46 to 0·00; p=0·047; ANCHOR-2, -0·25, -0·46 to -0·03; p=0·025; integrated, -0·24, -0·39 to -0·08). Adverse events were similar between depemokimab and placebo in ANCHOR-1 (74% [n=106] vs 79% [n=101]) and ANCHOR-2 (76% [n=98] vs 80% [n=102]).

INTERPRETATION

Depemokimab significantly improved clinically relevant coprimary endpoints versus placebo and was well tolerated, supporting its use as a twice per year treatment option, with the potential to reduce treatment burden for people with CRSwNP.

FUNDING

GSK.

Race and ethnicity, not just insurance, is associated with biologics initiation in asthma and related conditions

BACKGROUND

There are pre-existing inequities in asthma care.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate effect modification by race of the effect of insurance on biologic therapy use in patients with asthma and related diseases.

METHODS

We conducted inverse probability weighted analyses using electronic health records data from 2011 to 2020 from a large health care system in Boston, Mass. We evaluated the odds of not initiating omalizumab or mepolizumab therapy within 1 year of prescription for an approved indication.

RESULTS

We identified 1132 individuals who met study criteria. Twenty-seven percent of these patients had public insurance and 12% belonged to a historically marginalized group (HMG). One-quarter of patients did not initiate the prescribed biologic. Among patients with asthma, individuals belonging to HMG had higher exacerbation rates in the period before initiation compared to non-HMG individuals, regardless of insurance type. Among HMG patients with asthma, those with private insurance were less likely to not initiate therapy compared to those with public insurance (odds ratio [OR]: 0.67, and 95% CI: 0.56-0.79). Among non-HMG with asthma, privately insured and publicly insured individuals had similar rates of not initiating the prescribed biologic (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.95-1.09). Among those publicly insured with asthma, HMGs had higher odds of not initiating therapy compared to non-HMGs (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.03-1.31), but privately insured HMG and non-HMG did not differ significantly (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.91-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Publicly insured individuals belonging to HMG are less likely to initiate biologics when prescribed despite having more severe asthma, while there are no inequities by insurance in individuals belonging to other groups.

Pharmacokinetics of Depemokimab Delivered by Safety Syringe Device or Autoinjector in Healthy Adults: A Phase 1, Single-Dose Study

This Phase I, randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, single-dose study assessed the relative bioavailability of the anti-interleukin-5 antibody depemokimab (100 mg) when administered subcutaneously via either a safety syringe device (SSD) or an autoinjector (AI). Healthy adult participants were randomized I:I to SSD or AI treatment arms and I:I:I to the injection site (upper arm, abdomen, or thigh). Participants were followed up for 30 weeks; blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment before dosing on Day 1 and up to Week 26. Depemokimab concentration profile as measured by plasma maximum concentration (Cmax), the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf), PK parameters, immunogenicity, and safety were assessed. Overall, 140 participants were enrolled (n = 70 per arm). Mean plasma concentration-time profiles of depemokimab were similar in both treatment arms, regardless of the injection site, adjusted geometric mean AI:SSD ratios for Cmax and AUC0-inf were 1.03 and 1.03, respectively, with all 90% confidence intervals within the bioequivalence bounds of 0.80-1.25. PK parameters were comparable across treatment arms. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 19% of SSD and 20% of AI participants, with headache being the most common across both arms; no adverse events led to study withdrawal. These results support the use of either SSD or AI for subcutaneous administration of depemokimab.

Biologics in T2 Severe Asthma: Unveiling Different Effectiveness by Real-World Indirect Comparison

Background: Indirect comparison among biologics in severe asthma (SA) is a challenging but desirable goal for clinicians in real life. The aim of the study is to define characteristics of a biologic-treated T2-driven-SA population and to evaluate the effectiveness of biologic treatments in a real-world setting by variation in intra/inter-biologic parameters in an up to 4-year follow-up. Methods: Demographic, clinical, functional, and biological characteristics were evaluated retrospectively in 104 patients recruited until July 2022 at baseline (T0) and over a maximum of 4 years (T4) of biologic therapy (omalizumab/OmaG = 41, from T0 to T4, mepolizumab/MepoG = 26, from T0 to T4, benralizumab/BenraG = 18, from T0 to T2, and dupilumab/DupiG = 19, from T0 to T1). Variations of parameters using means of paired Delta were assessed. Results: At baseline, patients had high prevalence of T2-driven comorbidities, low asthma control test (ACT mean 17.65 ± 4.41), impaired pulmonary function (FEV1 65 ± 18 %pred), frequent exacerbations/year (AEs 3.5 ± 3), and OCS dependence (60%). DupiG had lower T2 biomarkers/comorbidities and AEs, and worse FEV1 (57 ± 19 %pred) compared to other biologics (p < 0.05). All biologics improved ACT, FEV1%, FVC%, AEs rate, and OCS use. FEV1% improved in MepoG and BenraG over the minimal clinically important difference and was sustained over 4 years in OmaG and MepoG. A significant RV reduction in OmaG (T4) and DupiG (T1), and BenraG normalization (T2) of airflow limitation were found. We observed through inter-biologic parameters pair delta variation comparison a significant nocturnal awakenings reduction in BenraG vs. OmaG/MepoG, and neutrophils reduction in BenraG/DupiG vs. OmaG. Conclusions: Indirect comparison among biologics unveils clinical and functional improvements that may mark a different effectiveness. These results may highlight the preference of a single biologic compared to another with regard to specific treatable traits.

Preference for a Novel Oral Alternative to Parenterally Administered Medications

Background

Rani Therapeutics is developing a robotic pill (RP), an oral drug delivery platform called RaniPill™ that can deliver a number of biotherapeutics with high bioavailability; eliminating the need for injections. While patients in general prefer oral to injectable therapies, preference for a more frequent oral regimen compared to a less frequent injectable regimen is unknown. Two marketing surveys were conducted to gather data on preference for oral versus injectable therapies. A clinical study gathered data on participant preference for oral pills vs injections before and after swallowing a Mock-RP capsule.

Methods

A total of 1689 adults taking injections (mean duration 3-7 years) to treat endocrine or inflammatory conditions were anonymously surveyed online for their preference to administer/prescribe medications orally via the RP. In the clinical study, 150 participants currently taking injections for chronic conditions evaluated the swallowability of a Mock-RP and completed a questionnaire regarding their preferences.

Results

Majority of respondents surveyed stated they would be willing to convert to an oral alternative over their current parenteral therapy regardless of drug or disease. In the clinical study, all participants were able to swallow the Mock-RP and 91% indicated their preference for the oral route versus their current parenteral route of drug administration. Survey respondents and those in the clinical study using frequent injections were more willing to select a once-daily capsule compared to those injecting infrequently. Even study participants who inject infrequently (≥monthly: 80%) would prefer a once-daily pill over their injection regimen.

Conclusion

Patients taking injections and prescribing physicians strongly prefer oral dosing to parenteral administration of biologics even if dosing frequency with the oral option, such as the RP, is increased.

Geographic and economic influences on benralizumab prescribing for severe asthma in Japan

Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-5 receptors, reduces exacerbations and oral corticosteroid requirements for severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. In Japan, geographic disparities in asthma outcomes suggest differential prescribing and access. This study aimed to quantify regional prescribing variations for benralizumab nationwide. Using Japan's National Database (NDB) of insurance claims (2009-2019), benralizumab standardized claim ratios (SCRs) were calculated for 47 prefectures. Correlations between SCRs and other biologics' SCRs, economic variables like average income, and physician densities were evaluated through univariate analysis and multivariate regressions. Income-related barriers to optimal prescribing were examined. Wide variation emerged in benralizumab SCRs, from 40.1 to 184.2 across prefectures. SCRs strongly correlated with omalizumab (r = 0.61, p < 0.00001) and mepolizumab (r = 0.43, p = 0.0024). Average monthly income also positively correlated with benralizumab SCRs (r = 0.45, p = 0.0016), whereas lifestyle factors were insignificant. Respiratory specialist density modestly correlated with SCRs (r = 0.29, p = 0.047). In multivariate regressions, average income remained the most robust predictor (B = 0.74, p = 0.022). Benralizumab SCRs strongly associate with income metrics more than healthcare infrastructure/population factors. Many regions show low SCRs, constituting apparent prescribing gaps. Access barriers for advanced asthma therapies remain inequitable among Japan's income strata. Addressing affordability alongside specialist allocation can achieve better prescribing quality and asthma outcomes.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of SHR-1703, an innovative long-acting anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, in healthy subjects: a randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation, placebo-controlled phase I study

OBJECTIVE

SHR-1703 is a novel humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody with high IL-5 affinity and prolonged half-life, aiming to control eosinophil-related diseases. The study intended to evaluate pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of SHR-1703 in healthy subjects.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose escalation phase I study was conducted. 42 subjects were allocated to sequentially receive single subcutaneous injection of 20, 75, 150, 300, and 400 mg SHR-1703 or placebo.

RESULTS

After administration, SHR-1703 was slowly absorbed with median Tmax ranging from 8.5 to 24.5 days. Mean t1/2 in 150 to 400 mg doses was 86 to 100 days. Cmax and AUC increased in nearly dose-proportional pattern over range of 75 to 400 mg SHR-1703. After receiving SHR-1703, peripheral blood eosinophils (EOS) greatly decreased from baseline, which showed no significant change from baseline in placebo group. Magnitude and duration of reduction of EOS rose with increased dosing of SHR-1703. In 400 mg dose, remarkable efficacy of reducing EOS maintained up to approximately 6 months post single administration. Moreover, SHR-1703 exhibited low immunogenicity (2.9%), favorable safety, and tolerability in healthy subjects.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of SHR-1703 support further clinical development of SHR-1703 in eosinophil-associated diseases.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04480762).

Pharmaceutical and biotech industry perspectives on optimizing patient experience and treatment adherence through subcutaneous drug delivery design

Subcutaneous (SC) drug delivery can be a safe, effective alternative to the traditional intravenous route of administration, potentially offering notable advantages for both patients and healthcare providers. The SC Drug Development & Delivery Consortium convened in 2018 to raise awareness of industry challenges to advance the development of patient-centric SC drug delivery strategies. The SC Consortium identified better understanding of patient preferences and perspectives as necessary to optimize SC product design attributes and help guide design decisions during SC product development. This manuscript provides a comprehensive overview of patient-centric factors for consideration in the SC drug delivery design and development process with the aim of establishing a foundation of existing knowledge for patient experiences related to SC drug delivery. This overview is informed by the outcomes of a multi-step survey of Consortium members and key pharmaceutical stakeholders. Framed in the context of the patient's treatment journey, the survey findings offer future perspectives to fill data gaps to advance patient-centric SC drug delivery.

Evaluating unmet needs in large-volume subcutaneous drug delivery: U.S. payer perspectives on a novel, large-volume on-body delivery system

OBJECTIVE

Existing healthcare systems face finite resource allocation and budgetary constraints, resulting in a substantial need for innovative solutions to enhance service delivery at reduced costs. A novel, user-friendly on-body delivery system (OBDS) was developed which enables administration of large-volume subcutaneous (SC) drugs in both clinical and home-based settings (at-home healthcare professional [HCP] administration or at-home self-administration).

METHODS

This research sought to evaluate the potential economic impact of at-home self- or HCP- administration with the OBDS through a comprehensive review of published literature and semi-structured interviews with 17 US payers representing approximately 227 million covered lives.

RESULTS

Published literature on OBDS remains limited, but available research highlights the cost-savings of SC administration due to reduced healthcare resource utilization, particularly with home-based care, and improved patient compliance. In interviews, payers identified several attributes that would help address unmet clinical and economic needs. Clinically, the hidden needle and ease-of-use compared to SC syringe pumps was deemed valuable to improve patient compliance and, as OBDS required minimal training, reduce the risk of administration errors. The flexibility to administer drugs at home (self-administration or HCP-administration) or in-clinic was identified as the most impactful attribute on coverage decision making as it has the greatest potential to reduce costs associated with HCP administration for several therapeutic areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the ability to help address critical unmet needs for the patient and healthcare system, a large proportion of the payers stated that the novel OBDS would warrant a price premium versus the cost of the standalone SC vial and certainly over the IV counterpart. Future research to quantify the value that OBDS efficiencies could bring to healthcare delivery are warranted.

Exploring Perceptions of Biologic Therapies: A Qualitative Study Among Canadians Living with Severe Asthma

INTRODUCTION

Biologic therapies have demonstrated benefits for individuals with severe asthma, including reduced daily symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, data describing patient perspectives on these treatments are limited. This study sought to understand the preferences and priorities of Canadians with severe asthma in the context of novel biologic treatment options.

METHODS

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted among Canadians with severe asthma from July to August 2022. Purposeful sampling included individuals with and without biologic therapy experience. All participants described daily life with severe asthma, experiences and priorities related to asthma treatment and their impressions of biologics. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to explore patterns in the data.

RESULTS

Among 18 individuals included, 10 were currently taking or had prior experience with biologic treatment for asthma. Those who had never been treated with biologics were unfamiliar with them, considering treatment, or believed that they may not be eligible. Four themes were developed to convey the perspectives of participants on biologics: (1) life-changing benefits, but not for all; (2) navigating barriers to being prescribed and remaining adherent to biologic treatments; (3) treatment administration preferences are not only about convenience; (4) concerns about safety and the unknown as a source of treatment hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that the clinical benefits of biologics align with patient perceptions of achieving good asthma control. However, treatment gaps persist among individuals who do not experience a meaningful improvement in their asthma symptoms and those who face barriers accessing biologics. People with severe asthma attributed importance to greater availability of at-home treatment options, improved access to financial support to cover treatment costs and support to address safety concerns. This research provides insight into patient-based treatment priorities and preferences for biologics, which may help inform decision-making related to emerging therapies for severe asthma.

Pharmacoequity in Allergy-Immunology: Disparities in Access to Medications for Allergic Diseases and Proposed Solutions in the United States and Globally

Pharmacoequity is the principle that individuals should have access to high-quality medications regardless of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or availability of resources. In this review, we summarize access to therapeutics for allergic diseases in the United States and other selected countries. We focus on domains of health care access (health insurance coverage, medication availability, and specialist access) as well as system-level factors and clinician- and patient-level factors such as interpersonal racism and cultural beliefs, and how they can affect timely access to appropriate therapy for allergic diseases. Finally, we propose how pharmacoequity in allergy-immunology can be achieved by highlighting solutions to factors limiting access to medications for allergic diseases, and identify potential future research directions.

Real-world reporting rates of administration-site reactions with on-demand treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is characterized by recurrent and unpredictable episodes of subcutaneous and/or submucosal swelling. Objective: To characterize the real-world treatment burden associated with existing on-demand therapies, we analyzed administration-site adverse drug reactions (ADR) associated with approved on-demand HAE therapies reported in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: We searched the FAERS database from October 1, 2009, to March 31, 2022, for reports of all FDA-approved on-demand therapies for HAE: plasma-derived C1-inhibitor (pdC1-INH), ecallantide, icatibant, and recombinant C1-inhibitor (rhC1-INH). ADRs in which the drug was listed as the "primary suspect" were recorded for each drug. ADR preferred terms were grouped into 18 ADR domains based on semantic and/or clinical similarity, and the number of reports for each drug was calculated per year from the time of approval through March 2022, and descriptive results were presented. Preferred terms associated with administration-site ADRs identified from clinical trials and denoted on approved HAE drug U.S. package inserts were examined in a complementary analysis. Results: The highest reported rates of administration-site ADRs per year were site pain (17.9 reports per year), site erythema (7.4 per year), and site swelling (6.7 per year). RhC1-INH was the only drug for which access-site complications and/or malfunctions were reported (9.5 per year). PdC1-INH had the highest rate of incorrect route of product administration (3.7 per year). PdC1-INH showed statistically significant elevated reporting rate of injection-site reactions (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 3.59 [2.36-5.46]; empirical Bayesian geometric mean [EBGM] 1.97 [1.39]). Icatibant and rhC1-INH showed a statistical trend toward an increased reporting rate of administration-site reactions. Conclusion: Real-world data from FAERS were generally consistent with adverse events reported in clinical trials and suggest that patients experience substantial treatment burden associated with FDA-approved parenteral on-demand therapies for HAE attacks. It should be noted that ADR rates are not exposure adjusted and are based on spontaneous reporting.

Patient-reported experiences with refractory or unexplained chronic cough: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic cough, defined as a cough lasting 8 or more weeks, affects up to 10% of adults. Refractory chronic cough (RCC) is a cough that is uncontrolled despite comprehensive investigation and treatment of comorbid conditions while unexplained chronic cough (UCC) is a cough with no identifiable cause despite extensive evaluation of comorbid conditions. RCC and UCC are often poorly controlled. Understanding individuals' lived experience of the symptoms and impacts of these conditions may guide therapeutic strategies.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this study were to assess respondents' perceptions of the key symptoms of RCC and UCC and the impacts of RCC and UCC and their symptoms on well-being, health-related quality of life, work productivity, and social relationships.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

METHODS

This study enrolled 30 adults with physician-diagnosed RCC or UCC. Two trained qualitative researchers conducted individual, in-depth telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and systematically analyzed to identify content themes.

RESULTS

A total of 15 respondents with RCC and 15 with UCC were included in the study. Many respondents had RCC or UCC for a long duration (median 9 years, range: 0-24). Half of the respondents reported having a coughing episode at least once daily. Only 40% of respondents reported that medication had improved their symptoms. In over half of the respondents, RCC or UCC hindered communication, caused embarrassment, frustration, and worry, and lowered quality of life. Perceptions of meaningful treatment benefits in RCC or UCC varied widely across respondents.

CONCLUSION

RCC and UCC remained poorly managed in many individuals and were associated with a wide range of symptoms and cough triggers that hindered daily activities and reduced emotional well-being. Understanding individuals' lived experiences may inform the development of RCC and UCC therapeutic strategies.

Significance of Self-Injectable Biologics in Japanese Patients with Severe Allergic Diseases: Focusing on Pen-Type Devices and Copayment

Patients and Methods

A questionnaire survey was administered to 18, 14, and 3 patients introduced to home self-injection of dupilumab or mepolizumab using a pen-type device for atopic dermatitis, asthma alone, and asthma plus chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, respectively.

Results

All but one participant wished to continue self-injection. Most participants affirmed the reduction in copayment (88.6%) and saving time and labor for hospital visits (88.6%). Six patients who received dupilumab complained of side effects, but all, except for one, continued the treatment. Of the 13 patients who had previously used a syringe-type device, 10 preferred the pen type because of its ease of use, while 3 (23%) preferred the syringe type because of the self-adjustable injection speed for pain control.

Conclusion

Administration of biologics using pen-type devices is easier, and the introduction of home self-injection leads to a reduction in outpatient visits and copayment.

Real-world severe asthma biologic administration and adherence differs by biologic: CHRONICLE study results

BACKGROUND

Patient adherence to biologic therapies is crucial for clinical benefits. Previous assessments of US patient adherence to severe asthma (SA) biologic therapies have relied on health care insurance claims data that have limitations.

OBJECTIVE

To describe real-world, specialist-reported, biologic administration and adherence among US adults with SA.

METHODS

CHRONICLE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045) is an ongoing real-world, noninterventional study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Sites report date and location for all biologic administrations. We evaluated biologic (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, reslizumab) adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first 52 weeks and the mean number of days until patients received the expected number of doses for 13, 26, and 52 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 2117 patients received biologic administrations between February 2018 and February 2022. Most patients (84%) received biologic administrations at a subspecialist site. Over time, administrations at specialist sites decreased, whereas at-home administrations increased. The median PDC was 87%; the mean number of days to receive a 52-week (364-day) equivalent number of doses was 423 for all biologics (average delay of 58 days). Dupilumab had the lowest PDC and highest mean delays in dosing across all intervals; better adherence was observed among commercially insured patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients with SA are mostly adherent to biologic therapies. Biologics with shorter dosing intervals and at-home administration had worse adherence, likely because of greater opportunities for delays. Specialist-reported administration data provide a unique perspective on biologic adherence, which may be overestimated for at-home administrations by insurance claims data.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03373045.

Addressing therapeutic inertia for asthma biologics: Lessons from the KOFU study

Despite evidence-based guidelines and the availability of five biologics in Japan to treat severe asthma, approximately one-third of patients with severe asthma continue to have uncontrolled disease. This lack of appropriate evidence-based treatment is a complex issue resulting from therapeutic inertia, a lack of treatment intensification according to evidence-based guidelines for patients who are considered eligible but not receiving therapy, and is often driven by complex factors involving patients, physicians, and healthcare systems. The KOFU study, the largest cross-sectional Internet Survey for severe asthma in Japan, addressed potential barriers to starting biologic treatment and sought a solution for therapeutic inertia regarding asthma biologics. Although the burden of high medical costs is the largest barrier to initiating biologic treatment for patients, other important barriers were also revealed, including an incorrect perception of asthma severity or a poor recognition of the need for treatment intensification, a lack of proper communication with patients or a lack of confidence in the physicians, initiating biologics together with the complicated process of the insurance systems to ease the burden of high medical costs or strict criteria for the approval of biologics for health care insurance systems. Increased awareness and understanding of these barriers to biologic treatment may facilitate an optimal recommendation process to individualize treatment in patients with severe asthma.

Development of an inhaled anti-TSLP therapy for asthma

Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), an epithelial cell-derived cytokine, acts as a key mediator in airway inflammation and modulates the function of multiple cell types, including dendritic cells and group 2 innate lymphoid cells. TSLP plays a role in asthma pathogenesis as an upstream cytokine, and data suggest that TSLP blockade with the anti-TSLP monoclonal antibody, tezepelumab, could be efficacious in a broad asthma population. Currently approved asthma biologic therapies target allergic or eosinophilic disease and require phenotyping; therefore, an unmet need exists for a therapy that can address Type 2 (T2)-high and T2-low inflammation in asthma. All currently approved biologic treatments are delivered intravenously or subcutaneously; an inhaled therapy route that allows direct targeting of the lung with reduced systemic impact may offer advantages. Currently in development, ecleralimab (CSJ117) represents the first inhaled anti-TSLP antibody fragment that binds soluble TSLP and prevents TSLP receptor activation, thereby inhibiting further inflammatory signalling cascades. This anti-TSLP antibody fragment is being developed for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma despite standard of care inhaled therapy. A Phase IIa proof of concept study, using allergen bronchoprovocation as a model for asthma exacerbations, found that ecleralimab was well-tolerated and reduced allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in adult patients with mild asthma. These results suggest ecleralimab may be a promising, new therapeutic class for asthma treatment.

Monoclonal antibody and protein therapeutic formulations for subcutaneous delivery: high-concentration, low-volume vs. low-concentration, high-volume

Biologic drugs are used to treat a variety of cancers and chronic diseases. While most of these treatments are administered intravenously by trained healthcare professionals, a noticeable trend has emerged favoring subcutaneous (SC) administration. SC administration of biologics poses several challenges. Biologic drugs often require higher doses for optimal efficacy, surpassing the low volume capacity of traditional SC delivery methods like autoinjectors. Consequently, high concentrations of active ingredients are needed, creating time-consuming formulation obstacles. Alternatives to traditional SC delivery systems are therefore needed to support higher-volume biologic formulations and to reduce development time and other risks associated with high-concentration biologic formulations. Here, we outline key considerations for SC biologic drug formulations and delivery and explore a paradigm shift: the flexibility afforded by low-to-moderate-concentration drugs in high-volume formulations as an alternative to the traditionally difficult approach of high-concentration, low-volume SC formulation delivery.

Narrative review to capture patients' perceptions and opinions about non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There are now many biological therapies to treat severe asthma. To assess which work best for which patient, we need to develop definitions of response. This narrative review aims to capture severe asthma patients' perceptions about non-response and response to biological therapy.

METHODS

Four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Grey literature was searched with the involvement of patient representatives. A thematic approach was used for synthesis. No qualitative studies specifically explore patients' perspectives on response to biological therapy for severe asthma. Three papers and one published asthma patient interview were included. Relevant grey literature was included from online discussion forums, blogs and social media websites.

RESULTS

Adult patients framed positive response to biological therapy in terms of reduced burden of disease and treatment. Both were multifaceted. Some patients experienced reduced benefit from biological therapy over time. There was a group of patients who described a limited response or non-response to biological therapy. This was framed within the context of continuing hospitalisation and oral corticosteroid treatment. The speed of onset of benefit was felt to be important by some.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitions of non-response and response need to be patient-centred, yet there is a complete lack of qualitative research focused on this topic. By combining relevant published and grey literature we have provided a description of adult patients' perceptions of response to biological therapy in severe asthma. We now need to understand the views of children and adolescents with severe asthma and their carers, and diverse patient experiences in real-world settings.

Factors Related to Biologic Adherence and Outcomes Among Moderate-to-Severe Asthma Patients

BACKGROUND

Adherence barriers to asthma biologics may not be uniform across administration settings for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in asthma biologic adherence and associated factors, as well as association with a 1-year all-cause emergency department (ED) visit, across administration settings.

METHODS

A retrospective study of biologic naïve moderate-to-severe asthma patients with initial biologic therapy between January 1, 2016, and April 30, 2020, in the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart was performed. Three administration settings were identified: Clinic-only (outpatient office/infusion center), Home (self-administration), and Hybrid setting (mixture of clinic and self-administration). Asthma biologic adherence was the proportion of observed over expected biologic dose administrations received within 6 months from initial therapy. Factors associated with adherence were identified by administration setting, using Poisson regression analyses. A relationship between a 1-year all-cause ED visit and adherence was assessed for each administration setting using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The study cohort was 3932 patients. Biologics adherence was 0.75 [0.5, 1] in Clinic setting, the most common administration setting, and 0.83 [0.5, 1] in both Home and Hybrid settings. Specialist access was consistently associated with better biologic adherence, whereas Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, lower education, Medicare only insurance, and higher patient out-of-pocket cost were associated with worse biologic adherence in some settings. In the Hybrid setting, hazard for a 1-year all-cause ED visit decreased with biologic adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Asthma biologic adherence varied by administration setting. Efforts to improve asthma biologic adherence should consider promoting self-administration when beneficial, improving prior specialist access, and targeting patients with higher risk of suboptimal adherence particularly Black and Hispanic patients.

Perceptions on Home-Administration of Biologics in the Context of Severe Asthma: An International Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Biologics are an effective therapy for severe asthma. Home administration of biologics by patients is likely to facilitate their accessibility. Yet little is known about patients' and health care providers' (HCPs) perceptions regarding home administration of biologics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to create more insight into the perceptions and experiences of patients and HCPs regarding home administration of biologics in the context of the treatment of severe asthma.

METHODS

A qualitative international study was performed in the Netherlands, United States, Australia, and United Kingdom. In each country, 2 focus groups were held with potential/recent and long-term users of biologics at home. Prior to the focus groups, patients were prompted with themes on online forums. For triangulation purposes, interviews were held with HCPs to discuss salient findings from forums and focus groups. Data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 75 patients participated in the forums, of which 40 participated in the focus groups. Furthermore, 12 HCPs were interviewed. The following overarching themes were identified: living with severe asthma; practical aspects of using biologics; the role of HCPs regarding biologics; social support from family, friends, and others; effectiveness of biologics and other treatments; side effects of biologics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that, for those using biologics for severe asthma, the benefits of home administration of biologics usually outweigh inconvenience and side effects. Guided practice, accessible support contact, and monitoring including social support should be central in the transition from hospital to home administration of asthma biologics.

Healthcare utilisation and health-related quality of life of severe asthma patients in Singapore

BackgroundNotwithstanding unequivocal consensus on the disproportionate effect of severe asthma (SA) on asthma morbidity, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, work impairment and socioeconomic burden, the burden of SA patients in Singapore has not been appraised.ObjectivesTo determine the burden of disease and extent of quality of life impairment in SA patients in Singapore.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis of SA patients seen in Singapore General Hospital (2020-2021) to investigate emergency healthcare utilization, oral corticosteroid (OCS) burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with primary endpoint EuroQoL-5 Dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) scores. The empirical measurement properties of the EQ-5D utility index in SA were comprehensively assessed through multivariate regression analyses.ResultsA total of 336 SA patients were recruited, 51.2% of SA patients had at least one acute healthcare resource utilization during the previous year, with 25.6% of patients having an emergency healthcare visit to the hospital. Overall mean (SD) EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-3L utility scores in SA patients were 6.22 (1.51) and 0.77 (0.30), respectively. EQ-5D utility scores were 0.14 lower in uncontrolled vs controlled asthma and 0.09 lower in the presence of severe exacerbation, whereas barely changed by maintenance OCS dose and airflow limitation.ConclusionSA patients were found to have high disease burden, high healthcare resource utilization and OCS use, low biologics usage, poor HRQoL and utility in comparison with other chronic diseases.

Home-based treatment of biologics for asthma: who, what, where, when and why

INTRODUCTION

The advent of biologic therapies for severe asthma has profoundly changed the management of this pathology. The introduction of home administration is therefore an important innovation to optimize the patients' management, even if there are many aspects that need to be clarified and pointed out.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the path that led to the possibility of self-administration of biologics, and what the pandemic has changed in the management of these patients.

EXPERT OPINION

The growing understanding of asthma phenotypes and endotypes is enabling the careful selection of patients suitable for biologics. In this context, the availability of reliable and simple self-injection devices is important in implementing self-administration. The transition to self-injection is also possible thanks to the high safety profile of biologics. With attention, most patients may potentially be suitable for self-administration. The transition process from hospital to home administration can therefore be carried out correctly by clinicians with adequate expertise in the field of severe asthma and biologic therapies, with the support of other health professionals, pharmacists, and general practitioners. Home administration is probably the best way to guarantee high adherence and high-level satisfaction of patients, even in the long term.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Patient Preferences for Attributes of Biologic Treatments in Moderate to Severe Asthma: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study

PURPOSE

Multiple biologics are available for moderate to severe asthma. Given the important relationship between patient engagement in healthcare decision-making and health outcomes, patient preference is an increasingly important consideration. This study elicited patients' preferences for attributes of biologic therapies for moderate to severe asthma.

PATIENT AND METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was designed to collect data from an existing survey panel of adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients were asked to select their preferred hypothetical treatment from profiles with varying attributes related to efficacy, safety, and administration convenience. Conditional logit regression models were used to quantify patient preferences.

RESULTS

Of 301 eligible patients who completed the survey, the mean age was 46.7±15.1 years and 71.8% were female. Patients had asthma for 22.5±16.3 years on average, and most (97.3%) had experienced ≥1 asthma attack in the past 12 months. Among treatment attributes examined, patients most valued the absence of a black box warning for the risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction, effectiveness of reducing severe asthma exacerbations, and improvement in lung function (all p < 0.001). Home administration setting for subcutaneous injections (vs doctor's office/clinic) (p = 0.009) and ability of a biologic to treat additional chronic condition(s) (p < 0.05) were also considered important. Dosing frequency and type of injection device were not significant factors.

CONCLUSION

Patients with moderate to severe asthma valued efficacy and safety over convenience attributes when selecting biologic treatments. Awareness of these preferences can facilitate patient-physician shared decision-making when managing moderate to severe asthma in clinical practice.

Impact of Routines and Rituals on Burden of Treatment, Patient Training, Cognitive Load, and Anxiety in Self-Injected Biologic Therapy

BACKGROUND

Self-injection of biologics is a mainstay of chronic disease treatment, yet the process of self-injection often causes persistent apprehension and anxiety, distinct from needle phobia. While literature alludes to the role that routines and rituals play in self-injection, there is no comprehensive study on the routines and rituals self-injectors employ, nor of the process by which they are discovered and ingrained.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-method, observational pilot ethnography study of 27 patients with plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis with and without prior biologic self-injection experience. Patients submitted self-made videos, photos, and projective exercises of an actual biologic self-injection and completed validated instruments to assess burden of treatment. Videos and photos containing routine and ritual elements were thematically categorized based on functional and emotional benefit, and analyzed for differences based on current biologic, dosing frequency, time on current biologic, and burden of treatment measures.

RESULTS

During patients' initial at-home injections, training gaps became apparent, leading to a process of experimentation aimed at reducing pain/anxiety, increasing confidence, and building a consistent injection process. Routines were present in 27/27 (100%) patients and anchored the time, place, and process for injection, and incorporated approved use steps for the injection device. Ritual elements served as emotional coping strategies for patients and were present in 21/27 (77.8%) of patients.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that providing patients device training using adult learning principles, teaching routines and rituals concurrently, and providing at-home opportunities for practice with a device trainer may be useful strategies to reduce anxiety, avoid unnecessary experimentation, and improve adherence to injection therapy. While further studies are needed to generalize our findings, we posit that routine and ritual elements can be incorporated into existing patient-clinician interactions or novel digital interventions through mobile medical applications, smart training devices, and connected injection ecosystems.

The impact of omalizumab on paid and unpaid work productivity among severe Japanese cedar pollinosis (JCP) patients

AIMS

Japanese cedar pollinosis (JCP) is a form of seasonal allergic rhinitis that affects 38.8% of the Japanese population. Particularly severe and most severe symptoms among JCP patients can lead to impairments of paid work productivity and unpaid work activities. Indeed, the current standard of care (SoC) is not always able to relieve these symptoms. Omalizumab, a novel JCP treatment recently approved in Japan, provides an effective add-on therapy to the SoC. This study estimates the effect of omalizumab on paid and unpaid work activities (i.e. its social impact) in patients with severe and most severe JCP symptoms in Japan.

METHODS

The impact of omalizumab was estimated through a one-year static cohort model using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Allergy Specific (WPAI-AS) questionnaire derived from a clinical trial on omalizumab enrolling patients with severe and most severe JCP symptoms, which had been conducted in Japan. This effect was quantified using Japanese official statistics on employment and time use. The human capital approach and the proxy good approach were employed to monetize paid and unpaid work activities, respectively. A sensitivity analysis was implemented to account for modeling structural uncertainties.

RESULTS

Our results show that the use of omalizumab might reduce the paid and unpaid work productivity losses due to severe and most severe JCP by nearly one-third. In the severe symptom period of three weeks, 36.6 million hours of lost paid and unpaid work hours could be avoided, which sums up to a monetized productivity loss of 728.3 million USD.

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab could provide substantial benefits in terms of paid and unpaid work activities in patients with severe and most severe JCP. Our results also highlight the importance of considering unpaid work in estimating productivity costs due to poor health.

Patient and Physician Perspectives on Asthma and Its Therapy in Romania: Results of a Multicenter Survey

Background and Objectives: Patient’s behaviours, attitudes and beliefs related to asthma and its treatment were shown to influence the adherence to therapy and the level of asthma control. This survey aimed to assess the level of asthma control and patient-reported behaviours, attitudes and expectations related to their disease in Romanian patients. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional quantitative survey was performed in February-March 2019 and enrolled 70 specialist physicians experienced in asthma management and 433 asthma patients under their care. Results: Of the 433 patients enrolled, 19.4% had mild asthma, 60.5% moderate asthma and 20.1% severe asthma. For the previous 12 months, asthma symptoms, exacerbations and emergency room visits were common in the sample analysed, with significantly higher figures in severe asthma patients (p < 0.001). The most important treatment goal for asthma patients was participation in all activities of daily living, while for physicians this was preventing asthma exacerbations. The valuation of the treatment goals was different between patients with severe asthma and those with mild and moderate forms. Based on the patients’ responses, 3 attitude clusters were identified: empowered savvy (36.5% of the patients), pessimistic non-compliers (43.2%), and anxious strugglers (20.3%). “Empowered savvy” had the lowest frequency of severe asthma, the highest adherence to maintenance therapy and the highest level of confidence in the effectiveness of asthma medication. The opposite of this attitude cluster is the “anxious strugglers”, containing more patients with severe asthma, a higher score for worries about asthma therapy and better self-reported knowledge of their treatment, contrasting with a proportion of 25% taking maintenance therapy only when having breathing difficulties. Conclusion: Asthma control in Romania remains poor, with frequent exacerbations and hospitalizations. The differences in treatment goals found between patients and physicians and between different asthma severity groups suggest the need for more patient-centred approaches.

Factors leading to discontinuation of biologic therapy in patients with severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient- and physician-reported reasons for discontinuing biologic therapy among patients with severe asthma from a real-world US cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis surveyed US physicians and their patients with severe asthma who were receiving/had previously received biologic therapy between August and December 2019. Physicians managing ≥3 patients with asthma per month completed surveys on disease management, demographics, exacerbation history, and biologic adherence for eligible patients. Patients could voluntarily complete a questionnaire, providing perceptions of their disease and treatment.

RESULTS

117 physicians completed case reports for 285 patients; 85 patients had discontinued biologic therapy. Physicians (n = 85) and patients (n = 64) reported patient request (28.2% and 46.9%), shortness of breath (45.9% and 23.4%), other chronic respiratory symptoms (29.4% and 10.9%), cost/reimbursement (17.7%/9.4% and 20.3%/7.8%), and exacerbations (25.9% and 10.9%) among the main reasons for biologic discontinuation. Patients who continued biologic therapy were older (mean age 47.6 years) than those who discontinued (43.8 years), and were more likely to have ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year (52.5% vs 35.3%), allergic rhinitis (70.0% vs 62.4%), or chronic rhinosinusitis (30.0% vs 12.9%). Side effects were cited as reasons by only 15.3% and 7.8% of physicians and patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common reasons given for discontinuation of biologic therapy were lack of symptom control, exacerbations, cost, and patient request. These data highlight the complexity of care for this patient group and the need for ongoing, regular assessment of common challenges to biologic continuation and reasons for discontinuation, including both clinical and non-clinical factors.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Asthma-Related Care Among Commercially Insured Patients, 2004-2016

BACKGROUND

Out-of-pocket (OOP) health care costs can cause financial burden and deferred care for many Americans. Little is known about OOP spending for asthma-related care among the commercially insured.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze OOP spending for asthma-related care overall, across types of care, and by income.

METHODS

Using enrollment, claims, and geocoded census tract data on income from a large US commercial health plan from 2004 to 2016, we measured inflation-adjusted OOP spending for individuals with asthma ages 4 to 64 years (n = 1,986,769). We estimated annual asthma-related OOP spending over time, and average total, asthma-related, asthma type of care, and asthma medication spending by income. We measured trends in median OOP cost per medication. Linear regression models were adjusted for patient covariates and deductible level.

RESULTS

Asthma-related OOP spending decreased over time both for patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans and for those in traditional plans. High-deductible plan enrollment increased from 7% to 54%. Compared with patients living in high-income areas, patients in the lowest-income areas had similar annual total and asthma-related OOP spending, but spent 30% less on controller medications and a higher proportion of their asthma-related OOP spending on inpatient and emergency care (10% vs 3%; P < .001). Asthma-related OOP spending represented a higher proportion of household income for patients in lower-income areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with asthma living in the lowest-income areas have greater cost burden, lower spending on controller medications, and greater spending on high-acuity care than higher-income counterparts.

Smart About Meds (SAM): a pilot randomized controlled trial of a mobile application to improve medication adherence following hospital discharge

Objective

The objectives of this pilot study were (1) to assess the feasibility of a larger evaluation of Smart About Meds (SAM), a patient-centered medication management mobile application, and (2) to evaluate SAM’s potential to improve outcomes of interest, including adherence to medication changes made at hospital discharge and the occurrence of adverse events.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial among patients discharged from internal medicine units of an academic health center between June 2019 and March 2020. Block randomization was used to randomize patients to intervention (received access to SAM at discharge) or control (received usual care). Patients were followed for 30 days post-discharge, during which app use was recorded. Pharmacy claims data were used to measure adherence to medication changes made at discharge, and physician billing data were used to identify emergency department visits and hospital readmissions during follow-up.

Results

Forty-nine patients were eligible for inclusion in the study at hospital discharge (23 intervention, 26 control). In the 30 days of post-discharge, 15 (65.2%) intervention patients used the SAM app. During this period, intervention patients adhered to a larger proportion of medication changes (83.7%) than control patients (77.8%), including newly prescribed medications (72.7% vs 61.7%) and dose changes (90.9% vs 81.8%). A smaller proportion of intervention patients (8.7%) were readmitted to hospital during follow-up than control patients (15.4%).

Conclusion

The high uptake of SAM among intervention patients supports the feasibility of a larger trial. Results also suggest that SAM has the potential to enhance adherence to medication changes and reduce the risk of downstream adverse events. This hypothesis needs to be tested in a larger trial.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number NCT04676165.

A Phase 1 study of the long-acting anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody GSK3511294 in patients with asthma

Aims

GSK3511294 is a humanized anti‐interleukin (IL)‐5 monoclonal antibody (mAb) engineered for extended half‐life and improved IL‐5 affinity versus other anti‐IL‐5 mAbs. This study examined its safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and effect on blood eosinophil counts.

Methods

This was a double‐blind, parallel‐group, single‐ascending‐dose, multicenter, Phase 1 study (205 722;NCT03287310) in patients with asthma and a blood eosinophil count ≥200 cells μL⁻¹. Patients were randomized 3:1 within dose cohorts to receive a single subcutaneous dose of GSK3511294 (2, 10, 30, 100 or 300 mg) or placebo and followed for up to 40 weeks to assess safety (primary endpoint), ratio to baseline in blood eosinophil count, plasma PK parameters and frequency/titers of binding antidrug antibodies (all secondary).

Results

Forty‐eight patients received the study drug and completed the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92% of placebo‐treated and 81% of GSK3511294‐treated patients. There were no AEs leading to study withdrawal or serious AEs; hypersensitivity (one event in one patient) and injection‐site reaction (three events in two patients) occurred infrequently. Marked reductions (>48%) in blood eosinophil count were seen from 24 hours post‐dose with all GSK3511294 doses but not placebo; suppression was maintained for longer with increasing dose (82% and 83% adjusted reductions vs placebo with 100 and 300 mg, respectively, at week 26). PK were linear and dose proportional over the dose range; terminal half‐life was 38‐53 days.

Conclusions

GSK3511294 was well tolerated, with linear and dose proportional PK, extended half‐life and blood eosinophil count reduction, supporting less frequent dosing versus other anti‐IL‐5 mAbs.

The current paradigm for biologic initiation: a mixed-methods exploration of practices, unmet needs, and innovation opportunities in self-injection training

BACKGROUND

Self-injection, particularly of biologics, has become a mainstay of chronic disease management. Despite labeling requirement for healthcare provider (HCP) training, current injection initiation experiences have been shown to be suboptimal. This study characterizes gaps in training and support during initiation and identifies rationales to inform solutions.

METHODS

We enrolled HCPs (n = 18) performing routine biologic initiation and patients (n = 24) currently self-injecting biologics. Participants completed activities through an online, remote ethnography tool. We conducted two focus groups with biologic-naïve patients (n = 5). Data was analyzed using thematic frameworks, Q methodology, and quantitative assessments.

RESULTS

Our results suggest considerable gaps exist. Analysis revealed five common themes that could explain these gaps: 1) minimal biologic-specific professional instruction is provided to HCPs; 2) nuanced injection use-steps are not universally understood; 3) no one stakeholder currently 'owns' training; 4) support offered by HCPs and manufacturers is perceived as biased; and 5) emotional burden is not accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests optimizing several elements to facilitate successful initiations, including structured sessions, improved HCP injection device knowledge, demo-device practice, and focus on both emotional and mechanical aspects. Aligning these factors has potential to increase patient confidence, reduce burden on HCPs, and improve probability of success on therapy.

Physician and patient perspectives on the management of hereditary angioedema: a survey on treatment burden and needs

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disorder caused by genetic mutations that lead to recurrent episodes of swelling in various parts of the body. Prophylactic treatment is common for patients with HAE, and the therapeutic options have expanded in recent years. The current standard of care for prophylactic HAE therapies is subcutaneous treatment, which can be self-administered at home, greatly improving patient quality of life. As new therapies emerge, it is important for patients and physicians to discuss the risks and benefits associated with each treatment to develop an individualized approach to HAE management. We conducted surveys of patients with HAE and physicians who treat patients with HAE to identify prescribing trends for prophylactic HAE treatments and the impact that such treatments has on patients. Our results confirmed that newer, subcutaneous therapies are prescribed for HAE prophylaxis more frequently than other therapies in the United States and that treatment burdens still exist for patients with HAE. We found that physicians and patients were not always aligned on how treatment choices affect patients' lives, which may mean that there are opportunities for enhanced patient-physician dialog and shared decision-making in HAE management in the United States.

Patient Preferences for Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Treatment for Chronic Immune System Disorders: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

For many chronic immune system disorders, the available treatments provide several options for route of administration. The objective of this systematic literature review is to inform discussions about therapy choices for individual patients by summarizing the available evidence regarding the preferences of patients with chronic immune system disorders for intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) administration.

METHODS

Searches of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were conducted using terms designed to capture studies reporting patient preferences between IV and SC therapy published in English. Relevant studies were limited to those in which mode of administration, including treatment frequency and setting, was the main difference between comparators.

RESULTS

In total, 49 studies were included in the review. Among 18 studies that compared IV and SC immunoglobulin therapy, 16 found patients to prefer the SC administration route. The results of the 31 studies comparing IV infusion and SC injection of non-immunoglobulin therapies were mixed, with patients favoring SC administration in 20, IV infusion in seven, and having no overall preference in four. Patient experience had a strong effect on preferences, with treatment-experienced patients preferring their current administration route in most studies. Patients preferring SC administration tended also to prefer treatment at home, mainly due to the convenience and comfort of home treatment and the avoidance of having to attend hospital. By contrast, patients preferring IV infusion tended to cite the lower treatment frequency and a dislike of self-injecting, and preferred hospital treatment, mainly due to the presence of healthcare professionals and resulting feelings of safety.

CONCLUSION

In general patients with chronic immune system disorders tend to be more likely to choose SC administration than IV infusion, but preferences may vary according among individuals. These findings may assist discussions around appropriate treatment choices for each patient.

Self-administration of omalizumab: why not? A literature review and expert opinion

Introduction: Omalizumab is used to treat severe uncontrolled allergic asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and is approved for self-administration in prefilled syringes. It is thus important to understand the advantages, critical issues, and indications for home administration.Areas covered: The present review summarizes the available evidence on home administration of omalizumab in asthma and CSU to illustrate the advantages derived from self-administration of patients in this setting.Expert opinion: The available data suggest that patients can safely administer biologics at home with suitable training, and that home administration is time saving and cost-effective. The majority of patients with severe asthma or CSU treated with omalizumab are likely to be suitable candidates for self-administration, which can be proposed to anyone that the clinician deems suitable. In addition to clinicians, pharmacists can also play a key role in managing patients who are prescribed home administration. A practical flow chart is proposed on selection of patients and their management during home administration. Self-administration of biologics can be considered as a valid alternative to traditional injections in a clinical setting, and the evidence has shown that no major issues need to be overcome in terms of safety or efficacy.

What matters to people with severe asthma? Exploring add-on asthma medication and outcomes of importance

There is an increasing number of new therapies for severe asthma; however, what outcomes people with severe asthma would like improved and what aspects they prioritise in new medications remain unknown. This study aimed to understand what outcomes are important to patients when prescribed new treatments and to determine the characteristics of importance to patients in their choice of asthma treatments.

Participants with severe asthma (n=50) completed a cross-sectional survey that ranked 17 potential hypothetical outcomes of treatment using a seven-point Likert scale, as well as selecting their top five overall outcomes. Participants also completed hypothetical scenarios trading off medication characteristics for four hypothetical add-on asthma treatments.

Participants (58% male), had a mean±sd age of 62.2±13.5 years. Their top three prioritised outcomes were: to improve overall quality of life (selected by 83% of people), reduce number and severity of asthma attacks (72.3%), and being able to participate in physical activity (59.6%) When trading off medication characteristics, the majority of patients with severe asthma chose the hypothetical medication with the best treatment efficacy (68%). However, a subgroup of patients prioritised the medication's side-effect profile and mode of delivery to select their preferred medication.

People with severe asthma value improved quality of life as an important outcome of treatment. Shared decision-making discussions between clinicians and patients that centre around medication efficacy and side-effect profile can incorporate patient preferences for add-on therapy in severe asthma.

Improving quality of life is an important treatment outcome. Shared decision-making discussions between clinicians and patients that centre around efficacy and side-effect profile incorporate patient preferences for add-on therapy in severe asthma.https://bit.ly/2GY1Sc4

Perspectives on decisions for treatment and care in severe asthma

Background

Severe asthma is a subtype of asthma that can be hard to control, resulting in an exceptional impact on an individual's quality of life. The aim of this review article is to explore the misalignment of perceptions of severe asthma among different stakeholders to identify how to reduce burden and improve delivery of care.

Results

The misalignment of perspectives is best reflected in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in asthma treatments, which are often designed for regulatory approval with a focus on exacerbations with no direct input from the individuals that the treatments are designed for. Based on a literature review and the clinical experience of the authors to overcome this disparity, the goals of people with severe asthma need to be incorporated throughout their care, from study design to the day-to-day management of their condition. Improved education for individuals and their support network will provide them with resources and knowledge so that they can effectively communicate their needs to other stakeholders involved in their care.

Conclusion/recommendation

A collaborative effort from all stakeholders is essential to ensure efficient management of asthma and a reduction in asthma burden on individuals and society.

Hereditary angioedema patients would prefer newer-generation oral prophylaxis

Objective

To explore treatment preferences of patients with Hereditary Angioedema (HAE), a debilitating disorder characterized by potentially life-threatening, recurrent episodes of swelling, resulting in significant physical, emotional, and economic burden. With newer oral prophylactic treatments on the horizon, it is important to understand patients’ preferences.

Methods

An online survey was conducted in 2018 among United States (US) adult patients diagnosed with Type I or II HAE. Respondents were recruited anonymously from online panels and social media.

Results

Online surveys were completed by 75 patients diagnosed with HAE by a healthcare provider, with a mean of 16.7 years since diagnosis. Most patients (64%) report taking at least one medication for prophylaxis of HAE attacks. While almost all patients surveyed agree it is important to take preventative medication as prescribed, over half (52%) of patients report HAE prophylactic treatment to be burdensome. Despite stating that they like their current medications, 98% of the prophylactic HAE medication users would prefer an oral treatment if available; almost all (96%) prophylaxis users agree that oral preventative medication would fit their life better than an injectable medication, with 67% of users citing convenience as the primary reason to try an oral preventative HAE medication. If a more convenient option were available, nearly all (96%) patients currently not treating their HAE prophylactically would feel encouraged to do so.

Conclusions

Most patients with HAE would prefer a newer generation oral prophylactic medication that would decrease treatment burden and allow them to live fuller lives.

Therapeutic Inertia in Prescribing Biologics for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Asthma: Workshop Summary

Moderate-to-severe asthma represents about a quarter of the nearly 10% of Americans diagnosed with asthma. Many patients with moderate-to-severe asthma have uncontrolled symptoms that lead to exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids. There are many factors contributing to poor asthma control, including poor adherence to prescribed therapies, the under-prescribing of biologics and therapeutic inertia. We convened an eight-member panel from fields of primary care, pulmonology, immunology, health services and clinical research, behavioral science and pharmaceutical medical affairs, with the goal of identifying contributing factors and solutions to therapeutic inertia with asthma biologics. We used the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation (COM-B) model to classify patient and provider behavior towards therapeutic inertia. The model incorporates existing behavior theories and is driven by the interaction of capability, opportunity, and motivation. We used a Delphi method to identify and develop six primary solutions: 1) integration of patient-centered outcomes into asthma management practice; 2) provider education about asthma treatment; 3) moderate-to-severe asthma care delivery redesign; 4) harmonized, evidence-based protocol for the management of moderate-to-severe asthma; 5) designated coordinator approach for optimal asthma management; and 6) a case coordination digital support tool. Integration of patient-centered outcomes into asthma management practice and provider education were identified as having the highest potential to impact therapeutic and clinical inertia. The COM-B model is effective in identifying improvement within therapeutic inertia targeting the capabilities, opportunities, and motivations of patients, providers, and payer systems.

Understanding and Minimising Injection-Site Pain Following Subcutaneous Administration of Biologics: A Narrative Review

Injection-site pain (ISP) is a subjective side effect that is commonly reported with the subcutaneous administration of biological agents, yet it may only be a concern to some. Multiple factors related to the product formulation, such as pH, volume and excipients, and/or to the injection process have the potential to contribute to ISP, while patient-related factors, such as low body weight, gender and age, can make an individual more susceptible to experiencing ISP. While total elimination of ISP remains unlikely with any subcutaneously administered agent, it can be minimised by helping the patient to develop a confident and competent injection technique via robust and effective training. Careful management of patient expectations along with open discussion regarding the potential risk of ISP may serve to minimise treatment-related anxieties and, importantly, allow the patient to remain in control of his/her treatment. Other interventions to help minimise ISP include psychological interventions, allowing biologics to reach room temperature prior to injection, using the most suitable injection device for the individual patient and selecting an alternative drug formulation, when available. Productive patient–physician communication remains important in order to support and optimise treatment experience and adherence, while also providing the opportunity for patients to discuss any ISP-related issues.

Bronchial thermoplasty versus mepolizumab: Comparison of outcomes in a severe asthma clinic

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

BT and interleukin-blocking monoclonal antibodies are both effective therapies for severe asthma, but there have been no direct comparisons between the two treatments. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of BT and mepolizumab, in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Patients with severe asthma despite optimized inhaler therapy were drawn from a severe asthma clinic in a tertiary hospital. Every patient commencing therapy with BT or mepolizumab was prospectively included in a national registry. At predetermined assessment points over a 12-month period, assessments were made of ACQ, spirometry, oral corticosteroid requiring exacerbations, reliever medication and maintenance oral corticosteroid use.

RESULTS

A total of 91 patients with severe asthma participated: mean ACQ score 3.5 ± 1.0, FEV₁ 51.4 ± 17.7%, maintenance oral steroids 48.3% and 11.5 ± 10.0 inhalations/day reliever therapy. Forty-seven patients received mepolizumab and 44 received BT. Baseline characteristics were similar except significantly higher blood eosinophil count in the mepolizumab group. At 12 months, there were no differences between treatment outcomes for ACQ (1.9 ± 1.3 mepolizumab vs 1.7 ± 1.3 BT), exacerbation rate (0.9 ± 1.1 vs 0.9 ± 1.5), reduction in reliever use (-6.3 ± 10.5 vs -5.0 ± 8.8 puffs/day) or reduction in oral corticosteroids (-3.3 ± 7.5 vs - 5.8 ± 6.7 mg/day). The FEV₁ improved equally (160 ± 290 vs 150 ± 460 mL). Readmission or prolonged admission was observed in 18.2% of BT patients, whilst 25.5% of mepolizumab patients had discontinued treatment at 12 months, 14.9% due to an adverse event or non-compliance.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that BT is as efficacious as mepolizumab for the treatment of severe asthma.