Search

Background: Aging implies changes in terms of lung function, immune system, and respiratory and extra-respiratory comorbidities. Few studies have specifically addressed the relevance of age on severe asthma burden and control. We aimed to evaluate whether age acts as an independent determinant of asthma severity, in terms of clinical, functional, and inflammatory profile, and to explore potential cofactors that contribute to a more difficult disease control in different age groups. Methods: Patients from Severe Asthma Network Italy (SANI) registry were retrospectively divided in subgroups according to their age. Cutoffs for age were established according to quartiles in order to obtain a comparable number of patients for each group, and then rounded for the sake of simplicity. Results: Overall, 1805 severe asthma patients were analyzed. Lung function represented the most important age-related variable. On the opposite the level of asthma control was not differently distributed among age ranges. In young people the presence of atopy-related comorbidities (allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis) predominated, whilst systemic-metabolic and degenerative comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, anxious-depressive syndrome, and osteoporosis prevailed in elderly. Bronchiectasis and sleep disturbances were significantly associated with age. Conclusions: Despite that it cannot be considered a treatable trait, our study suggests that age should be evaluated within a personalized approach to severe asthma patients, in order to provide a better clinical profiling and a more tailored treatment strategy.

Introduction: There is, so far, no universal definition of severe asthma. This definition usually relies on: number of exacerbations, inhaled therapy, need for oral corticosteroids, and respiratory function. The use of such parameters varies in the different definitions used. Thus, according to the parameters chosen, each patient may result in having severe asthma or not. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the choice of a specific definition of severe asthma can change the allocation of patients. Methods: Data collected from the Severe Asthma Network Italy (SANI) registry were analyzed. All the patients included were then reclassified according to the definitions of U-BIOPRED, NICE, WHO, ATS/ERS, GINA, ENFUMOSA, and TENOR. Results: 540 patients, were extracted from the SANI database. We observed that 462 (86%) met the ATS/ERS criteria as well as the GINA criteria, 259 (48%) the U-Biopred, 222 (41%) the NICE, 125 (23%) the WHO, 313 (58%) the Enfumosa, and 251 (46%) the TENOR criteria. The mean eosinophil value were similar in the ATS/ERS, U-Biopred, and Enfumosa (528, 532 and 516 cells/mcl), higher in WHO and Tenor (567 and 570 cells/mcl) and much higher in the NICE classification (624 cells/mcl). Lung function tests resulted similarly in all groups, with WHO (67%) and ATS/ERS-GINA (73%), respectively, showing the lower and upper mean FEV1 values. Conclusions: The present observations clearly evidence the heterogeneity in the distribution of patients when different definitions of severe asthma are used. However, the recent definition of severe asthma, provided by the GINA document, is similar to that indicated in 2014 by ATS/ERS, allowing mirror reclassification of the patients examined. This lack of homogeneity could complicate the access to biological therapies. The definition provided by the GINA document, which reflects what suggested by ATS/ERS, could partially overcome the problem.

Background and aims: Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) which worsen patients’ health and increase healthcare spending. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic effect of adding mepolizumab (MEP) for the treatment of these patients. Methods: Patients >18 years old, referred to 8 asthma clinics, starting MEP between May 2017 and December 2018, were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. Information in the 12 months before mepolizumab were collected retrospectively. The evaluation parameters included: OCS use, number of exacerbations/hospitalizations, concomitant therapies, comorbidity, and annual number of working days lost due to the disease. The primary objective was to compare the annual total cost per patient pre- and post-MEP. Secondary outcomes included rates of exacerbations and number of OCS-dependent patients. Results: 106 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 male, median age 58 years. Mean annual cost pre- and post-MEP (cost of biologic excluded) was €3996 and €1,527, respectively. Total savings due to MEP resulted in €2469 (95%CI 1945–2993), 62% due to exacerbations reduction and 33% due to productivity increase. Such savings could fund about 22% of the total cost of MEP for one year. The introduction of MEP induced a clinical benefit by reducing both OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.06–0.23) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.19, 95%CI 0.15–0.24). Conclusions: Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experienced a clinical benefit in asthma control adding MEP to standard therapy. Biologic therapy can be, partially, funded by the savings produced by patients’ improvement.

According to the data derived from several national and international registries, including SANI (Severe Asthma Network Italy), and considering the strong impact that frequent or regular use of oral corticosteroid has on quality of life (QoL) of severe asthmatics, as well as on the costs for managing corticosteroid-related diseases, oral corticosteroid sparing up to withdrawal should be considered a primary outcome in the management of severe asthma. New biologics have clearly demonstrated that this effect is possible, with concomitant reduction in the rate of exacerbations and in symptom control. Then, there is no reason for using so frequently oral corticosteroid before having explored all alternatives currently available for a large part of severe asthmatics.

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p

Abstract Background Data on the prevalence of perennial versus seasonal allergic asthma in Italy are lacking; moreover, there is limited evidence on the effect of omalizumab on patient-reported outcomes in Italian patients with severe allergic asthma. PROXIMA, an observational, multicenter study, was designed to assess the prevalence of perennial versus seasonal allergic asthma (cross-sectional phase) and the effect of omalizumab on improving illness perception, quality of life (QoL) and asthma control of Italian patients with severe allergic asthma (longitudinal phase). Methods The study included a cross-sectional phase (n = 357) and a longitudinal phase (n = 123): during the longitudinal phase, patients received omalizumab (75–600 mg subcutaneously every month) and were followed-up for 12 months. The primary parameter of cross-sectional phase was prevalence of perennial allergic asthma and that of longitudinal phase was proportion of patients with asthma control (assessed using asthma control questionnaire [ACQ]). Secondary parameters assessed were patients’ disease perception, level of asthma control, exacerbation rate during both cross-sectional and longitudinal phases, and patients' compliance to and persistence with omalizumab, and patients' QoL during the longitudinal phase. Results Most patients (95.8%) had perennial allergies; 81% had polysensitization. Of 99 patients in the per-protocol set, 95 (95.96% [95% CI: 89.98–98.89%]) achieved asthma control (ACQ

Background: Understanding how patients generate preferences for administration route alternatives may improve health-care delivery and clinical outcomes. Recently, novel biological therapies with subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration routes have been approved for severe uncontrolled asthma. The aim of our study was to assess the preferred route of biologic therapy administration and related beliefs among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational survey study. Patients answered an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire after an outpatient visit in pulmonary disease clinics located throughout Italy. Socio-demographic and clinical information together with the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12), Work Productivity Impairment Scale and the medical resources utilization module of the Health & Work Survey were collected. Patients beliefs and preference towards SC and IV administration were investigated by means of an ad hoc 13 item questionnaire. Results: the main findings: 150 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the questionnaire (47.3% males). Preference for IV and SC administration was 18.7% and 81.3%, respectively. Compared with patients preferring SC formulation, patients that favored IV were older (p ​= ​0.04), less likely to escalate corticosteroid dose (p ​= ​0.03) and had emergency room (ER) access (p ​= ​0.009) during asthma exacerbations. Patients felt that SC was more convenient than IV, but this belief was not associated with higher likelihood of preferring SC administration. IV formulations were more likely associated with quicker and more effective drug action (p ​= ​0.0001), procedural safety and medical oversight (p ​= ​0.0002) and social support (p ​= ​0.007). Predictors of IV preference were represented by the association of worse asthma control and increased use of ER services, and by beliefs toward formulation effectiveness/efficiency in reducing symptoms (p ​= ​0.04 and p ​