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

Pharmacoequity and Biologics in the Allergy Clinic: Providing the Right Care, at the Right Time, Every Time, to Everyone

Pharmacoequity refers to equity in access to pharmacotherapy for all patients and is an especially large barrier to biologic agents in patients with allergic diseases. Value-based care models can prompt clinicians to address social determinants of health, promoting pharmacoequity. Pharmacoequity is influenced by numerous factors including socioeconomic status, which may be mediated through insurance status, educational attainment, and access to specialist care. In addition to lower socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, age, locations isolated from care systems, and off-label indications for biologic agents all constitute barriers to pharmacoequity. Whereas pharmaco-inequity is more apparent for expensive biologics, it also affects many other allergy treatments including epinephrine autoinjectors and SMART for asthma. Current programs aimed at alleviating cost barriers are imperfect. Patient assistance programs, manufacturer-sponsored free drug programs, and rebates often increase the complexity of care, with resultant inequity, particularly for patients with lower health literacy. Ultimately, single silver-bullet solutions are elusive. Long-term improvement instead requires a combination of research, advocacy, and creative problem-solving to design more intelligent and efficient systems that provide timely access to necessary care for every patient, every time.

Association between pre-biologic T2-biomarker combinations and response to biologics in patients with severe asthma

Background

To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials.

Aim

To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life.

Methods

This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers.

Results

Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE.

Conclusions

The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.

Difficult-To-Treat and Severe Asthma: Can Real-World Studies On Effectiveness of Biological Treatments Change the Lives of Patients?

Many different phenotypes that characterize severe asthma are supported by intricate pathomechanisms called endotypes. The latter are driven by molecular interactions, mediated by intercellular networks. With regard to the biological treatments of either allergic or non-allergic eosinophilic type 2 asthma, real-world studies have confirmed the positive effects of currently available antibodies directed against immunoglobulins E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5) and its receptor, as well as the receptors of interleukins-4 (IL-4) and 13 (IL-13). The best way to treat severe asthma should be chosen based on the peculiar phenotypic and endotypic traits of each patient. This will lead to relevant improvements in both clinical and functional outcomes. In particular, biological therapies can change the lives of asthma patients with a strong impact on quality of life. Unfortunately, patients with severe non-type-2 asthma, who continue to have pertinent unmet needs, are not receiving satisfactory advances within the context of biological treatments. It is also hopeful that in the next future new therapeutic strategies will be specifically implemented for these people, perhaps offering them the opportunity to improve their current, mostly inadequate asthma management.

Severe asthma care trajectories: the French RAMSES cohort

Background

The French RAMSES study is an observational prospective multicentre real-life cohort including severe asthmatic subjects. The objective of the study was to compare the characteristics of patients, in terms of phenotype and asthma care trajectories, between those managed by tertiary referral centres (TRCs) or secondary care centres (SCCs).

Methods

Patients were prospectively recruited and enrolled for a 5-year follow-up. Patients' characteristics were analysed at inclusion and compared between TRCs and SCCs.

Results

52 centres (24 TRCs and 28 SCCs) included 2046 patients: 1502 (73.4%) were included by a TRC and 544 (26.6%) by a SCC. Patients were mainly women (62%), 53±15 years old, 67% with Asthma Control Test <20; at inclusion, 14% received oral corticosteroids (OCS) and 66% biologics. Compared with the SCC group, the TRC group had more frequent comorbidities and lower blood eosinophil counts (262 versus 340 mm-3; p=0.0036). OCS and biologics use did not differ between groups, but patients in the TRC group benefited more frequently from an educational programme (26% versus 18%; p=0.0008) and received more frequently two or more sequential lines of biologics (33% versus 24%; p=0.0105). In-depth investigations were more frequently performed in the TRC group (allergy tests: 74% versus 62%; p<0.0001; exhaled nitric oxide fraction: 56% versus 21%; p<0.0001; induced sputum: 6% versus 3%; p=0.0390).

Conclusions

Phenotypes and care trajectories differed in the RAMSES cohort between SCCs and TRCs, probably related to different levels of asthma severity and differences in medical resources and practices among centres. This highlights the need for standardisation of severe asthma care.

Association Between T2-related Comorbidities and Effectiveness of Biologics in Severe Asthma

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV1% predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV1% predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.

Predictors of persistent poor control and validation of ASSESS score: Longitudinal 5-year follow-up of severe asthma cohort

Background

Longitudinal predictors of persistent poor asthma control in severe asthma (SA) cohort remain scarce. The predictive value of the asthma severity scoring system (ASSESS) in the SA cohort outside the original study and in the Asian population is unknown.

Objective

We sought to determine the 5-year longitudinal outcome of patients with SA and validate the use of ASSESS score in predicting future outcomes in SA.

Methods

A prospective longitudinal observational study of patients with SA attending the multidisciplinary specialist SA clinic of the Singapore General Hospital from 2011 to 2021 was conducted. The number of exacerbations and asthma control test results were recorded yearly for 5 consecutive years. The ASSESS score was computed at baseline, and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for predicting persistent poor asthma control was generated.

Results

Of the 489 patients recruited into the study, 306 patients with 5-year follow-up data were analyzed. Seventy-three percent had type 2 inflammation with increased overall exacerbations over 5 years (rate ratio, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.31-4.96; P = .006) relative to non-type 2 SA. In the multivariate model, bronchiectasis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and an asthma control test score of less than 20 were significantly associated with persistent poor asthma control over 5 years. ASSESS scores were good at predicting persistent poor asthma control with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.84).

Conclusions

Bronchiectasis and gastroesophageal reflux disease are predictors for persistent poor asthma control and targeted traits for precision medicine in SA. The ASSESS score has a good prediction for persistent poor asthma control over 5 years.

Developments in the Management of Severe Asthma in Children and Adolescents: Focus on Dupilumab and Tezepelumab

Severe asthma in children and adolescents exerts a substantial health, financial, and societal burden. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition with multiple clinical phenotypes and underlying inflammatory patterns that might be different in individual patients. Various add-on treatments have been developed to treat severe asthma, including monoclonal antibodies (biologics) targeting inflammatory mediators. Biologics that are currently approved to treat children (≥ 6 years of age) or adolescents (≥ 12 years of age) with severe asthma include: anti-immunoglobulin E (omalizumab), anti-interleukin (IL)-5 (mepolizumab), anti-IL5 receptor (benralizumab), anti-IL4/IL13 receptor (dupilumab), and antithymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) (tezepelumab). However, access to these targeted treatments varies across countries and relies on few and crude indicators. There is a need for better treatment stratification to guide which children might benefit from these treatments. In this narrative review we will assess the most recent developments in the treatment of severe pediatric asthma, as well as potential biomarkers to assess treatment efficacy for this patient population.

Adult Severe Asthma Registries: A Global and Growing Inventory

Aim

The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) uses standardised variables to enable multi-country and adequately powered research in severe asthma. This study aims to look at the data countries within ISAR and non-ISAR countries reported collecting that enable global research that support individual country interests.

Methods

Registries were identified by online searches and approaching severe asthma experts. Participating registries provided data collection specifications or confirmed variables collected. Core variables (results from ISAR's Delphi study), steroid-related comorbidity variables, biologic safety variables (serious infection, anaphylaxis, and cancer), COVID-19 variables and additional variables (not belonging to the aforementioned categories) that registries reported collecting were summarised.

Results

Of the 37 registries identified, 26 were ISAR affiliates and 11 non-ISAR affiliates. Twenty-five ISAR-registries and 4 non-ISAR registries reported collecting >90% of the 65 core variables. Twenty-three registries reported collecting all optional steroid-related comorbidity variables. Twenty-nine registries reported collecting all optional safety variables. Ten registries reported collecting COVID-19 variables. Twenty-four registries reported collecting additional variables including data from asthma questionnaires (10 Asthma Control Questionnaire, 20 Asthma Control Test, 11 Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and 4 EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level Questionnaire). Eight registries are linked to databases such as electronic medical records and national claims or disease databases.

Conclusion

Standardised data collection has enabled individual severe asthma registries to collect unified data and increase statistical power for severe asthma research irrespective of ISAR affiliations.

Impact of Initiating Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma on Long-Term Oral Corticosteroids or Frequent Rescue Steroids (GLITTER): Data From the International Severe Asthma Registry

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS.

METHODS

This was a propensity score-matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization.

Revisiting asthma pharmacotherapy: where do we stand and where do we want to go?

Several current guidelines/strategies outline a treatment approach to asthma, which primarily consider the goals of improving lung function and quality of life and reducing symptoms and exacerbations. They suggest a strategy of stepping up or down treatment, depending on the patient's overall current asthma symptom control and future risk of exacerbation. While this stepwise approach is undeniably practical for daily practice, it does not always address the underlying mechanisms of this heterogeneous disease. In the last decade, there have been attempts to improve the treatment of severe asthma, such as the addition of a long-acting antimuscarinic agent to the traditional inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist treatment and the introduction of therapies targeting key cytokines. However, despite such strategies several unmet needs in this population remain, motivating research to identify novel targets and develop improved therapeutic and/or preventative asthma treatments. Pending the availability of such therapies, it is essential to re-evaluate the current conventional "one-size-fits-all" approach to a more precise asthma management. Although challenging, identifying "treatable traits" that contribute to respiratory symptoms in individual patients with asthma may allow a more pragmatic approach to establish more personalised therapeutic goals.

Evaluation of switching or simultaneous use of biologic treatment in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and severe asthma. Considerations in clinical decision making

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 targeting biologics have reached the market first for asthma and since 2019 also for CRSwNP. As clear guidelines and predictors for optimal biological choice are missing, patients are sometimes required to switch biologic therapy in order to find the optimal treatment result. In this paper, we evaluate reasons for switching biologics and the treatment effects after each sequential switch.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-four patients who switched from one biologic to another for their treatment of CRSwNP and asthma were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty patients experienced satisfactory control of CRSwNP, but insufficient control of severe asthma. Fifty-one patients experienced satisfactory control of severe asthma, but insufficient control of CRSwNP/EOM. Twenty-eight patients experienced insufficient control of both upper and lower airways. Thirteen patients had to switch because of side effects. Furthermore, two cases are described to clarify clinical decision-making.

DISCUSSION

For abovementioned patients, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to find the best suitable biologic. It seems ineffective to switch to a second anti-IL5 treatment if the first one is not successful. Most patients that failed omalizumab and/or an anti-IL-5 treatment are well controlled on dupilumab. Therefore, we suggest to use dupilumab as first choice when switching biologic agents.

Use of digital measurement of medication adherence and lung function to guide the management of uncontrolled asthma (INCA Sun): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The clinical value of using digital tools to assess adherence and lung function in uncontrolled asthma is not known. We aimed to compare treatment decisions guided by digitally acquired data on adherence, inhaler technique, and peak flow with existing methods.

METHODS

A 32-week prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel, randomly controlled trial was done in ten severe asthma clinics across Ireland, Northern Ireland, and England. Participants were 18 years or older, had uncontrolled asthma, asthma control test (ACT) score of 19 or less, despite treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, and had at least one severe exacerbation in the past year despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the active group or the control group, by means of a computer-generated randomisation sequence of permuted blocks of varying sizes (2, 4, and 6) stratified by fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) concentration and recruitment site. In the control group, participants were masked to their adherence and errors in inhaler technique data. A statistician masked to study allocation did the statistical analysis. After a 1-week run-in period, both groups attended three nurse-led education visits over 8 weeks (day 7, week 4, and week 8) and three physician-led treatment adjustment visits at weeks 8, 20, and 32. In the active group, treatment adjustments during the physician visits were informed by digital data on inhaler adherence, twice daily digital peak expiratory flow (ePEF), patient-reported asthma control, and exacerbation history. Treatment was adjusted in the control group on the basis of pharmacy refill rates (a measure of adherence), asthma control by ACT questionnaire, and history of exacerbations and visual management of inhaler technique. Both groups used a digitally enabled Inhaler Compliance Assessment (INCA) and PEF. The primary outcomes were asthma medication burden measured as proportion of patients who required a net increase in treatment at the end of 32 weeks and adherence rate measured in the last 12 weeks by area under the curve in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analyses included all patients who consented for the trial. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02307669 and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 25, 2015, and Jan 26, 2020, of 425 patients assessed for eligibility, 220 consented to participate in the study, 213 were randomly assigned (n=108 in the active group; n=105 in the control group) and 200 completed the study (n=102 in the active group; n=98 in the control group). In the intention-to-treat analysis at week 32, 14 (14%) active and 31 (32%) control patients had a net increase in treatment compared with baseline (odds ratio [OR] 0·31 [95% CI 0·15-0·64], p=0·0015) and 11 (11%) active and 21 (21%) controls required add-on biological therapy (0·42 [0·19-0·95], p=0·038) adjusted for study site, age, sex, and baseline FeNO. Three (16%) of 19 active and 11 (44%) of 25 control patients increased their medication from fluticasone propionate 500 μg daily to 1000 μg daily (500 μg twice a day; adjusted OR 0·23 [0·06-0·87], p=0·026). 26 (31%) of 83 active and 13 (18%) of 73 controls reduced their medication from fluticasone propionate 1000 μg once daily to 500 μg once daily (adjusted OR 2·43 [1·13-5·20], p=0·022. Week 20-32 actual mean adherence was 64·9% (SD 23·5) in the active group and 55·5% (26·8) in the control group (between-group difference 11·1% [95% CI 4·4-17·9], p=0·0012). A total of 29 serious adverse events were recorded (16 [55%] in the active group, and 13 [45%] in the control group), 11 of which were confirmed as respiratory. None of the adverse events reported were causally linked to the study intervention, to the use of salmeterol-fluticasone inhalers, or the use of the digital PEF or INCA.

INTERPRETATION

Evidence-based care informed by digital data led to a modest improvement in medication adherence and a significantly lower treatment burden.

FUNDING

Health Research Board of Ireland, Medical Research Council, INTEREG Europe, and an investigator-initiated project grant from GlaxoSmithKline.

The burden of systemic corticosteroid use in asthma management in Asia

For most patients, asthma can be effectively managed using inhaled medications. However, patients who have severe and/or uncontrolled asthma, or who experience exacerbations, may require systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) to maintain asthma control. Although SCS are highly effective in this regard, even modest exposure to these medications can increase the risk for long-term, adverse health outcomes, such as type 2 diabetes, renal impairment, cardiovascular disease and overall mortality. Clinical and real-world data from studies investigating asthma severity, control and treatment practices around the globe have suggested that SCS are overused in asthma management, adding to the already substantial healthcare burden experienced by patients. Throughout Asia, although data on asthma severity, control and SCS usage are limited and vary widely among countries, available data strongly suggest a pattern of overuse consistent with the broader global trend. Coordinated changes at the patient, provider, institutional and policy levels, such as increasing disease awareness, promoting better adherence to treatment guidelines and increasing availability of safe and effective alternatives to SCS, are likely necessary to reduce the SCS burden for patients with asthma in Asia.

A Charter to Fundamentally Change the Role of Oral Corticosteroids in the Management of Asthma

Asthma affects 339 million people worldwide, with an estimated 5-10% experiencing severe asthma. In emergency settings, oral corticosteroids (OCS) can be lifesaving, but acute and long-term treatment can produce clinically important adverse outcomes and increase the risk of mortality. Therefore, global guidelines recommend limiting the use of OCS. Despite the risks, research indicates that 40-60% of people with severe asthma are receiving or have received long-term OCS treatment. Although often perceived as a low-cost option, long-term OCS use can result in significant health impairments and costs owing to adverse outcomes and increased utilization of healthcare resources. Alternative treatment methods, such as biologics, may produce cost-saving benefits with a better safety profile. A comprehensive and concerted effort is necessary to tackle the continued reliance on OCS. Accordingly, a threshold for OCS use should be established to help identify patients at risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Receiving a total dose of more than 500 mg per year should trigger a review and specialist referral. Changes to national and local policies, following examples from other chronic diseases, will be crucial to achieving this goal. Globally, multiple barriers to change still exist, but specific steps have been identified to help clinicians reduce reliance on OCS. Implementing these changes will result in positive health outcomes for patients and social and economic benefits for societies.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials of Biologics for Severe Asthma as Potential Predictors of Outcomes

(1) Background: Over the past 20 years, monoclonal antibodies have been developed for the treatment of severe asthma, with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to define their safety and efficacy. The growing availability of biologics, which until now have only been available for T2-high asthma, has been further enriched by the arrival of tezepelumab. (2) Methods: This review aims to evaluate the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in RCTs of biologics for severe asthma to understand how they could potentially predict outcomes and how they can help differentiate between available options. (3) Results: The studies reviewed demonstrated that all biologic agents are effective in improving asthma control, especially with regard to reducing exacerbation rates and OCS use. As we have seen, in this regard, there are few data on omalizumab and none yet on tezepelumab. In analysing exacerbations and average doses of OCSs, pivotal studies on benralizumab have enrolled more seriously ill patients. Secondary outcomes, such as improvement in lung function and quality of life, showed better results-especially for dupilumab and tezepelumab. (4) Conclusion: Biologics are all effective, albeit with important differences. What fundamentally guides the choice is the patient's clinical history, the endotype represented by biomarkers (especially blood eosinophils), and comorbidities (especially nasal polyposis).

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.

Benefits of specialist severe asthma management: demographic and geographic disparities

BACKGROUND

The benefits of specialist assessment and management have yet to be evaluated within the biologic era of UK severe asthma treatment, and potential disparities have not been considered.

METHODS

In an uncontrolled before-and-after study, we compared asthma symptoms (Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6)), exacerbations, unscheduled secondary care use, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)) and oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose after 1 year. We compared outcomes by sex, age (18-34, 35-49, 50-64 and ≥65 years), ethnicity (Caucasian versus non-Caucasian) and hospital site after adjusting for demographics and variation in biologic therapy use.

RESULTS

1140 patients were followed-up for 1370 person-years from 12 specialist centres. At annual review, ACQ-6 score was reduced by a median (interquartile range (IQR)) of 0.7 (0.0-1.5), exacerbations by 75% (33-100%) and unscheduled secondary care by 100% (67-100%). FEV1 increased by a median (IQR) of 20 (-200-340) mL, while OCS dose decreased for 67% of patients. Clinically meaningful improvements occurred across almost all patients, including those not receiving biologic therapy. There was little evidence of differences across demographic groups, although those aged ≥65 years demonstrated larger reductions in exacerbations (69% versus 52%; p<0.001) and unscheduled care use (77% versus 50%; p<0.001) compared with patients aged 18-34 years. There were >2-fold differences between the best and worst performing centres across all study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialist assessment and management is associated with substantially improved patient outcomes, which are broadly consistent across demographic groups and are not restricted to those receiving biologic therapy. Significant variation exists between hospitals, which requires further investigation.

Characterization of Patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry with High Steroid Exposure Who Did or Did Not Initiate Biologic Therapy

Background

Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics.

Methods

Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons.

Results

Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/µL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p<0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147).

Conclusion

Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.

An update on the currently available and emerging synthetic pharmacotherapy for uncontrolled asthma

INTRODUCTION

: The treatment of uncontrolled asthma has improved because of triple therapy that includes a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and biological drugs, but several patients are resistant to corticosteroids and/or cannot achieve adequate asthma control using such therapies.

AREAS COVERED

: Herein, the authors review the current and emerging synthetic pharmacotherapy for uncontrolled asthma to overcome obstacles and limitations of biological therapies. The authors also provide their expert perspectives and opinion on the treatment of uncontrolled asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

: LAMAs should be added to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations much earlier than currently recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma strategy because they can influence the course of small airways disease, reducing lung hyperinflation and improving asthma control. Biological therapies are a major advance in the treatment of severe asthma, but their use is still very limited for several reasons. An alternative to overcome the use of biological therapies is to synthesise compounds that target inflammation-signalling pathways. Several pathways have been identified as potential targets to design either therapeutic or prophylactic drugs against asthma. Some new compounds have already been tested in humans, but results have often been disappointing probably because existing phenotypic and endotypic variants may unpredictably limit the therapeutic value of blocking a specific pathway in most asthmatics, although there may be a substantial benefit for a subgroup of patients.