Search

Abstract Background Patients living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at an increased risk of lung cancer. A common comorbidity of COPD is cardiovascular disease; as such, COPD patients often receive statins. This study sought to understand the association between statin exposure and lung cancer risk in a population-based cohort of COPD patients. Methods We identified a population-based cohort of COPD patients based on having filled at least three prescriptions for an anticholinergic or short-acting beta-agonist (SABA). We used an array of methods of defining medication exposure including three conventional methods (ever statin exposure, cumulative duration of use, and cumulative dose) and two novel methods (recency-weighted cumulative duration of use and recency-weighted cumulative dose). To assess residual confounding, a negative control exposure was used to test the validity of our results. All exposure variables were time-dependent. Results The population-based cohort of COPD had 39,879 patients with mean age of 70.6 (SD: 11.2) years and, of which, 53.5% were female. There were 12,469 patients who received at least one statin prescription. Results from the reference case multivariable analysis indicated a reduced risk from statin exposure (HR: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73–1.00) in COPD patients, but this result not statistically significant. Using the two recency-weighted modelling approaches, statin exposure was associated with a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer risk (recency-weighted cumulative dose, HR: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77–0.93) and recency-weighted cumulative duration of use, HR: 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96–0.99). Multivariable analysis incorporating the negative control exposure was not statistically significant (HR: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.75–1.10). Conclusions The results of this population-based analysis indicate that statin use in COPD patients may reduce the risk of lung cancer. While the effect was not statistically significantly across all exposure definitions, the overall results support the hypothesis that COPD patients might benefit from statin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea (OSAH) is a common disorder characterized by recurrent collapse of the upper airway during sleep. Patients experience a reduced quality of life and an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which is the first-line therapy for OSAH, improves sleepiness, vigilance and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients presenting with asthma and chronic cough.

BACKGROUND: Asthma mortality and morbidity continue to be a serious global problem. Systematic reviews provide an opportunity to review risk factors in detail.

BACKGROUND: The lack of a relationship between airway responsiveness and respiratory symptoms in epidemiological studies of children may, in part, reflect inaccuracies in symptom reporting or inadequate knowledge by the parent of the child's symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize two cluster outbreaks of tuberculosis by DNA fingerprinting and to evaluate the possibility of their association with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and multiple drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Background: Benralizumab induces rapid and near-complete depletion of eosinophils from blood and lung tissue. We investigated whether benralizumab could attenuate the allergen-induced late asthmatic response (LAR) in participants with allergic asthma., Methods: Participants with allergic asthma who demonstrated increased sputum eosinophils and LAR at screening were randomised to benralizumab 30 mg or matched placebo given every 4 weeks for 8 weeks (3 doses). Allergen challenges were performed at weeks 9 and 12 when blood, sputum, bone marrow and bronchial tissue eosinophils and LAR were assessed., Results: 46 participants (mean age 30.9 years) were randomised to benralizumab (n=23) or placebo (n=23). Eosinophils were significantly reduced in the benralizumab group compared with placebo in blood at 4 weeks and sputum and bone marrow at 9 weeks after treatment initiation. At 7 h after an allergen challenge at week 9, sputum eosinophilia was significantly attenuated in the benralizumab group compared to placebo (least squares mean difference -5.81%, 95% CI -10.69- -0.94%; p=0.021); however, the LAR was not significantly different (least squares mean difference 2.54%, 95% CI 3.05-8.12%; p=0.363). Adverse events were reported for seven (30.4%) and 14 (60.9%) participants in the benralizumab and placebo groups, respectively., Conclusion: Benralizumab administration over 8 weeks resulted in a significant attenuation of blood, bone marrow and sputum eosinophilia in participants with mild allergic asthma; however, there was no change in the LAR, suggesting that eosinophils alone are not a key component of allergen-induced bronchoconstriction., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: G.M. Gauvreau reports support for the present manuscript from AstraZeneca, grants from AstraZeneca, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from AstraZeneca. R. Sehmi reports support for the present study from AstraZeneca. R. Leigh reports support for the present study from AstraZeneca, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca. D.W. Cockcroft reports support for the present manuscript from AstraZeneca, and grants from SHRF, Biohaven, AllerGen, University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine and CIHR. I. Mayers reports grants from AstraZeneca Canada and Boehringer Ingelheim, consultancy fees from Sanofi Canada and AstraZeneca, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, and payment for expert testimony from Alberta Justice. L-P. Boulet reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Regeneron, royalties or licences from UptoDate and Taylor & Francis, consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Sanofi-Regeneron, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck and Sanofi, and leadership role as Past-Chair of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Board of Directors, Past President of the Global Asthma Organisation (Interasma), Past Member of the Canadian Thoracic Society Respiratory Guidelines Committee and Past Laval University Chair on Knowledge Transfer, Prevention and Education in Respiratory and Cardiovascular Health. T. Ho reports grants from Fisher & Paykel, consultancy fees from Valeo and AstraZeneca, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. I. Satia reports grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Bellus, consultancy fees from Merck, Genentech, Respiplus and GlaxoSmithKline/Bellus, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. P.D. Mitchell reports grants from Teva, consultancy fees from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca. I.P. Magee reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from GlaxoSmithKline. C. Bergeron reports support for the present study from AstraZeneca, grants from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Regeneron, consultancy fees from ValeoPharma, Sanofi, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, ValeoPharma, Sanofi and Grifols. M. Bhutani reports grants from CIHR, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi, consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Covis and Valeo, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and Covis. V. Werkström was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time of the study and reports stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. T. Durżyński was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time of the study and reports stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. K. Shoemaker was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time of the study and reports stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. R.K. Katial was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time of the study and reports personal fees from AstraZeneca. M. Jison was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time of the study and reports stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. C. McCrae was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time of the study and reports stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. P.M. O'Byrne reports support for the present study from AstraZeneca, grants from AstraZeneca, Merck and Biohaven, consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sage, Teva and Affibody, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline and Covis. The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

There is a growing number of studies investigating discriminatory fear conditioning and conditioned inhibition of fear to assess safety learning, in addition to extinction of cued fear. Despite all of these paradigms resulting in a reduction in fear expression, there are nuanced differences among them, which could be mediated through distinct behavioral and neural mechanisms. These differences could impact how we approach potential treatment options in clinical disorders with dysregulated fear responses. The objective of this review is to give an overview of the conditional discrimination and inhibition findings reported in both animal models and human neuropsychiatric disorders. Both behavioral and neural findings are reviewed among human and rodent studies that include conditional fear discrimination via conditional stimuli with and without reinforcement (CS+ vs. CS-, respectively) and/or conditional inhibition of fear through assessment of the fear response to a compound CS-/CS+ cue versus CS+. There are several parallels across species in behavioral fear expression as well as neural circuits promoting fear reduction in response to a CS- and/or CS-/CS+ compound cue. Continued and increased efforts to compare similar behavioral fear inhibition paradigms across species are needed to make breakthrough advances in our understanding and treatment approaches to individuals with fear disorders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Cortisol and heart rate variability (HRV) are well-established biomarkers of the human stress response system. While a relationship between cortisol and HRV is assumed, few studies have found evidence of their correlation within single study designs. One complication for isolating such a relationship may lie in individual variability in the cortisol response to stress such that atypical cortisol responding (i.e., elevated or blunted) occurs. To-date, studies on the cortisol response have employed traditional mean-difference-based approaches to examine average magnitude change in cortisol over time. Alternatively, data-driven trajectory modelling, such as latent growth mixture modelling, may be advantageous for quantifying cortisol based on patterns of response over time. Latent growth mixture modelling was used in N = 386 adults to identify subgroups based on trajectories of cortisol responses to stress. The relationship between cortisol and HRV was tested within subgroups. Results revealed a 'prototypical' subgroup characterised by expected rise and fall in cortisol response to stress (n = 309), a 'decline' subgroup (n = 28) that declined in cortisol after stress, and a 'rise' subgroup (n = 49) that increased in cortisol after stress. Within the 'prototypical' subgroup, greater HRV during stress was associated with decline in cortisol after stress from its maximum (r (306) = 0.19, p < 0.001). This relationship failed to emerge in the 'decline' and 'rise' subgroups (p > 0.271). Results document different patterns of cortisol response to stress; among those who exhibit a 'prototypical' response, changes in HRV during stress are related to changes in cortisol after stress., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma., Objective: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma., Methods: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV 1 ]: <50% to ≥80%)., Results: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV 1 . The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV 1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment., Conclusion: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies., Trial Registration: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Perez-de-Llano reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Techdow Pharma, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Faes Farma, personal fees from Leo-Pharma, grants and personal fees from Gebro, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr Scelo is a consultant for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Dr Canonica has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. Dr Henley is affiliated with OPRI and reports receiving travel support from Eisai Limited. Dr Larenas-Linnemann reports receiving personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Carnot, grants from AbbVie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Dr Peters declares receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. Dr Pfeffer has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Tran is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Suppli Ulrik reports receiving personal fees for talks and having participation in advisory boards and others from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Popov declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. Dr Sadatsafavi has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, TEVA, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. Dr Hew declares receiving grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. Dr Maspero reports receiving speaker fees and grants or serving on the advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini, and Noucor. Dr Gibson has received speaker fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr FitzGerald previously declared receiving grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis paid directly to UBC and receiving personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and TEVA. Dr Torres-Duque has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, and Novartis. Dr Porsbjerg has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr Papadopoulos has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, AbbVie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. Dr Papaioannou has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. Dr Heffler declares receiving personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes, and Circassia. Dr Iwanaga received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Al-Ahmad has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences. Dr Kuna reports receiving personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and Zentiva, outside the submitted work. Dr Fonseca reports receiving grants from research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis and personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and TEVA. Dr Al-Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. Dr Rhee received consulting/lecture fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. Dr Koh reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital (Singapore General Hospital) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Dr Cosio declares receiving grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr Perng (Steve) has received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. Dr Menzies-Gow is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Busby has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. Dr Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis United Kingdom, Roche/Genentech Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman-La Roche, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann-La Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; and is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine United Kingdom Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Janssen. Dr Patel has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr Wang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Wechsler reports receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, Restorbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound Biologics, Incyte, and Kinaset. Dr Altraja has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; has sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Lehtimäki has received personal fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Orion Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr Bourdin has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron and conducted consultancies with AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. Dr Bjermer has (in the last 3 years) received lecture or advisory board fees from Alk-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, and Teva. Ms Bulathsinhala is an employee of the OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Ms Carter is an employee of Optimum Patient Care, which is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Dr Murray is a consultant for OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Mr Beastall is an employee of the Optimum Patient Care Global, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Dr Denton declares receiving grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects and speaker fees from Sanofi. Dr Price has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and United Kingdom National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Commune Digital, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Medscape, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and United Kingdom) and 92.61% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the United Kingdom Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Childhood abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual) is associated with aberrant connectivity of the amygdala, a key threat-processing region. Heightened amygdala activity also predicts adult anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, as do experiences of childhood abuse. The current study explored whether amygdala resting-state functional connectivity may explain the relationship between childhood abuse and anxiety and PTSD symptoms following trauma exposure in adults., Methods: Two weeks posttrauma, adult trauma survivors ( n  = 152, mean age [SD] = 32.61 [10.35] years; women = 57.2%) completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire and underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. PTSD and anxiety symptoms were assessed 6 months posttrauma. Seed-to-voxel analyses evaluated the association between childhood abuse and amygdala resting-state functional connectivity. A mediation model evaluated the potential mediating role of amygdala connectivity in the relationship between childhood abuse and posttrauma anxiety and PTSD., Results: Childhood abuse was associated with increased amygdala connectivity with the precuneus while covarying for age, gender, childhood neglect, and baseline PTSD symptoms. Amygdala-precuneus resting-state functional connectivity was a significant mediator of the effect of childhood abuse on anxiety symptoms 6 months posttrauma ( B  = 0.065; 95% CI, 0.013-0.130; SE = 0.030), but not PTSD. A secondary mediation analysis investigating depression as an outcome was not significant., Conclusions: Amygdala-precuneus connectivity may be an underlying neural mechanism by which childhood abuse increases risk for anxiety following adult trauma. Specifically, this heightened connectivity may reflect attentional vigilance for threat or a tendency toward negative self-referential thoughts. Findings suggest that childhood abuse may contribute to longstanding upregulation of attentional vigilance circuits, which makes one vulnerable to anxiety-related symptoms in adulthood., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Although the cerebellum contributes to higher-order cognitive and emotional functions relevant to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), prior research on cerebellar volume in PTSD is scant, particularly when considering subregions that differentially map on to motor, cognitive, and affective functions. In a sample of 4215 adults (PTSD n = 1642; Control n = 2573) across 40 sites from the ENIGMA-PGC PTSD working group, we employed a new state-of-the-art deep-learning based approach for automatic cerebellar parcellation to obtain volumetric estimates for the total cerebellum and 28 subregions. Linear mixed effects models controlling for age, gender, intracranial volume, and site were used to compare cerebellum volumes in PTSD compared to healthy controls (88% trauma-exposed). PTSD was associated with significant grey and white matter reductions of the cerebellum. Compared to controls, people with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume, as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior lobe (lobule VIIB, crus II), vermis (VI, VIII), flocculonodular lobe (lobule X), and corpus medullare (all p -FDR  < 0.05). Effects of PTSD on volume were consistent, and generally more robust, when examining symptom severity rather than diagnostic status. These findings implicate regionally specific cerebellar volumetric differences in the pathophysiology of PTSD. The cerebellum appears to play an important role in higher-order cognitive and emotional processes, far beyond its historical association with vestibulomotor function. Further examination of the cerebellum in trauma-related psychopathology will help to clarify how cerebellar structure and function may disrupt cognitive and affective processes at the center of translational models for PTSD., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

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, FEV 1 % 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 FEV 1 % 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.

Background: Childhood maltreatment is associated with reduced activation of the nucleus accumbens, a central region in the reward network, and overactivity in the amygdala, a key region in threat processing. However, the long-lasting impact of these associations in the context of later-life stress is not well understood. The current study explored the association between childhood threat and deprivation and functional connectivity of threat and reward regions in an adult trauma sample., Methods: Trauma survivors (N = 169; mean age [SD] = 32.2 [10.3] years; female = 55.6%) were recruited from a level I trauma center. Two weeks after injury, participants completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (measuring experiences of threat and deprivation) and underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. Seed-to-voxel analyses evaluated the effect of childhood threat and deprivation on amygdala and nucleus accumbens resting-state connectivity., Results: Higher levels of threat were associated with increased connectivity between the right nucleus accumbens with temporal fusiform gyrus/parahippocampal gyrus and the left amygdala and the precuneus (false discovery rate-corrected p < .05). After controlling for posttraumatic symptoms 2 weeks posttrauma and lifetime trauma exposure, only the nucleus accumbens findings survived. There were no significant relationships between experiences of childhood deprivation and amygdala or nucleus accumbens connectivity., Conclusions: Experiences of threat are associated with increased nucleus accumbens and amygdala connectivity, which may reflect a preparedness to detect salient and visual stimuli. This may also reflect a propensity toward dysregulated reward processing. Overall, these results suggest that childhood threat may be contributing to aberrant neural baseline reward and threat sensitivity later in life in an adult trauma sample., (Copyright © 2023 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Investigation for the presence of asthma comorbidities is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma because their presence can complicate asthma management., Objective: To understand the prevalence and pattern of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adults with severe asthma and their association with asthma-related outcomes., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry from 22 countries. A total of 30 comorbidities were identified and categorized a priori as any of the following: (1) potentially type 2-related comorbidities, (2) potentially oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related comorbidities, or (3) comorbidities mimicking or aggravating asthma. The association between comorbidities and asthma-related outcomes was investigated using multivariable models adjusted for country, age at enrollment, and sex (ie male or female)., Results: Of the 11,821 patients, 69%, 67%, and 55% had at least 1 potentially type 2-related, potentially OCS-related, or mimicking or aggravating comorbidities, respectively; 57% had 3 or more comorbidities, and 33% had comorbidities in all 3 categories. Patients with allergic rhinitis, nasal polyposis, and chronic rhinosinusitis experienced 1.12 (P = .003), 1.16 (P < .001), and 1.29 times (P < .001) more exacerbations per year, respectively, than those without. Patients with nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis were 40% and 46% more likely (P < .001), respectively, to have received long-term (LT) OCS. All assessed potential OCS-related comorbidities (except obesity) were associated with a greater likelihood of LTOCS use (odds ratios [ORs]: 1.23-2.77) and, except for dyslipidemia, with a greater likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.29-1.68). All mimicking or aggravating comorbidities assessed were associated with more exacerbations (1.24-1.68 times more), all (except bronchiectasis) with increased likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.57-1.81), and all (except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with increased likelihood of LTOCS use (ORs: 1.37-1.57). A greater number of comorbidities was associated with worse outcomes., Conclusion: In a global study, comorbidity or multimorbidity is reported in most adults with severe asthma and is associated with poorer asthma-related outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: The International Severe Asthma Registry database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance [ENCEPP]/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EMA 2014; EUPAS44024) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulations, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=48848). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1121)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Scelo and Dr Murray are consultants for the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). Dr Torres-Duque has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, and Novartis. Dr Maspero reports receiving speaker fees, grants, or fees for serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini, and Noucor. Dr Tran, Dr Menzies-Gow, and Dr Martin are employees of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Hew reports receiving grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus for unrelated projects. Dr Peters reports receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Gibson has received speaking fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr Popov reports receiving relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. Dr Côté reports receiving speaking fees and consultant fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and ValeoPharma and reports receiving unrestricted grant support from GlaxoSmithKline; Dr Bergeron reports advisory board participation in Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and ValeoPharma and honorarium for presentations for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Grifols, Sanofi, Regeneron, and ValeoPharma. Dr Dorscheid is on faculty at the University of British Columbia and is supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, British Columbia Lung Association, and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. In addition, he has received speaking fees, travel grants, unrestricted project grants, and writing fees and is a paid consultant for Sanofi-Regeneron, Novartis Canada, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and ValeoPharma and is an active member of the Canadian Thoracic Society, American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, and the Allergen Research Network. Dr FitzGerald previously reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novartis paid directly to UBC and personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva. Dr Chapman reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bellus, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Inhibrx, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vertex and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Inhibrx, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda; he has a leadership or fiduciary role in Alpha-1 Canada, the Canadian Thoracic Society, and Alpha-1 Foundation. Dr Boulet has received grants for participation in clinical studies from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and BioHaven; for consulting and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Sanofi-Regeneron; and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Covis, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr Bhutani has received speaker and consultant fees for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Covis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Valeo. Dr Sadatsafavi has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. Dr Jiménez-Maldonado has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and has participated in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Duran-Silva has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr Solarte received fees from GlaxoSmithKline for participation on advisory boards. Dr Fernandez-Sanchez is a part-time employee of GlaxoSmithKline and does not hold shares in the company. Dr Bülow reports receiving speakers fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Novartis outside the submitted work and has also attended the advisory board for Novartis and AstraZeneca. Dr Bjerrum has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr Ulrik reports receiving personal fees for talks and participation in advisory boards, among others, from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Rasmussen declares receiving speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, ALK, and Mundipharma outside the submitted work and attended advisory board for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Altraja has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Bourdin has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron and consultancies with AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. Dr Taille has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi, and Novartis for unrelated projects. Dr Charriot reports receiving advisory board and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi; consulting fees for Chiesi; and serving as a trial coinvestigator for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Roche reports receiving grants and personal fees from Austral, Biosency, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Pfizer and personal fees from MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Sanofi, Menarini, and Zambon. Dr Papaioannou has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. Dr Kostikas received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, ELPEN, GILEAD, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics, and WebMD; and received funding and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Innovis, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, and NuvoAir (paid to the University of Ioannina). Dr Papadopoulos has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, AbbVie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. Dr Salvi reports receiving research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Mitchell has received speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, and Novartis and has received grants from AstraZeneca and Teva. Dr Costello has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva; is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen; and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence, and prediction of exacerbations. Dr Heffler declares receiving personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes, and Circassia. Dr Puggioni reports having received lectures or advisory board fees from Menarini, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Alk Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and Almirall. Dr Canonica has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. Dr Iwanaga received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Mona Al-Ahmad has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS). Dr Linnemann reports receiving personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, and Carnot and grants from AbbVie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Dr Garcia Ramirez received fees as a speaker and advisory board participant from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Genzyme, Chiesi, and Novartis. Dr Kuna reports receiving personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and Zentiva outside the submitted work. Dr Fonseca reports receiving grants from or has research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novartis and has received personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva. Dr Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. Dr Koh reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital (Singapore General Hospital) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Dr Kook Rhee received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. Dr Cosio declares receiving grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr de Llano reports receiving grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Teva, Faes, and Sanofi; personal fees and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi; personal fees from MSD, Techdow Pharma, GILEAD, and Leo Pharma; and grants and personal fees from GEBRO outside the submitted work. Dr Perng received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. Dr Tsai has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Orient EuroPharma. Dr Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Busby has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir outside the submitted work. Dr Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline, for which his institution received remuneration; and is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. Dr Pfeffer has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Goddard reports receiving lecture fees from Sanofi. Dr Wang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; and has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Hoyte reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech and has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Teva, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Wechsler reports receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, resTORbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound biologic, Incyte, and Kinaset. Ms Carter is an employee of Optimum Patient Care (OPC) (OPC is a cofounder of the International Severe Asthma Registry and a cofounder of the APEX-COPD initiative). Ms Bulathsinhala is an employee of OPRI. Ms Eleangovan and Mr Ariti were employees of OPRI. Dr Lyu was an employee of OPC. Dr Price has advisory board membership with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Thermofisher; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance; received grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, and the UK National Health Service; received payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma, Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Thermofisher; funding for patient enrollment or completion of research from Novartis; has stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise OPC Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); has 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology; is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation program and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Porsbjerg has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Balint groups use case-based discussions to explore, reflect on, and enhance the clinician-patient relationship. They facilitate the development of empathy and reflective practice and reduce burnout. This study aimed to explore how the benefits of a traditional Balint group format can be accessed and optimised for medical students during a one-year pilot programme., Methods: Eight medical student Balint groups ran for six weeks during 2022-2023, with 90 students participating. Themes were identified from student feedback using qualitative content analysis. Group leaders kept reflective session notes and used these alongside student feedback to undertake a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis., Results: Strengths of the programme were emotional containment, learning to reflect, and community identity. Weaknesses were themed as strange situations, dragging along, and facilitator as an object. Opportunities were identified in expanding the scope and sharpening focus. Psychological defences and the engagement dilemma threatened the future success of the Balint group programme., Discussion: Medical student Balint groups provide a unique space to combine learning and emotional support with personal, professional and community development. However, the traditional Balint group format may need adapting to be widely accessible to undergraduate learners. Sustainably integrating Balint groups into the medical school curriculum requires ongoing engagement work at both an individual and organisational level.

Background: The healthcare experiences of patients hold valuable insights for improving the quality of services related to their well-being. We therefore invited and explored the perspectives of patients living with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on their interaction with the systems supporting health, in order to identify opportunities to improve services to prevent, treat and manage these conditions., Methods: Two virtual focus groups were held in August 2021, one for adult asthma and one for COPD, to learn of patients' experiences receiving care for these conditions in the Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) region of British Columbia. Participants were recruited through online postings or their clinician. We discussed the care pathway for each condition and invited participants to share their experiences of the past 5 years, specifically their reflections on the process, including feelings, points of praise and frustration, and opportunities for improvement in this context. Composite patient journey maps were developed for each condition to reflect the experiences shared. Audio recordings of the focus groups were transcribed and used in qualitative data analysis., Results: Thematic analysis revealed the following as possible areas for improvement: low public awareness of asthma and COPD and associated risk factors, non-standardised diagnosis pathways that delay diagnosis, and inconsistency in delivering valued aspects of care such as supports for self-management, trust-inspiring acute care, empowering patient communication and timely access to care., Conclusion: We successfully used focus groups to generate composite journey maps of the experiences of patients living with asthma (n=8) and COPD (n=9) to identify features that these patients consider important for improving the healthcare system for asthma and COPD in VCH. Health professionals, decision makers and patient advocates in VCH and beyond can consider these insights when evaluating, and planning changes to, current practices and policies in service delivery., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Negative effects of bleaching on dentin have previously been reported in vitro., Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of carbamide peroxide bleaching on dentin fatigue resistance using a clinically relevant in situ model., Methods and Materials: Following research ethics board approval, 60 human teeth requiring extraction were collected. Sterilized human dentin specimens were cut (1.2x1.2x10 mm) and secured into customized bleaching trays to be used by study participants. Participants were randomly assigned to either bleach (10% carbamide peroxide, n=23) or control (gel without bleach, n=26) treatment groups. Treatment was applied to the bleaching trays and worn overnight by participants for 14 days. After treatment completion, dentin specimens were removed from the bleaching trays and subjected to fatigue testing (10 N, 3 mm/s, 2x105 cycles) while submerged in artificial saliva. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to compare the number of cycles to failure during fatigue testing in both groups. A log rank test was run to determine if there were differences in the survival distribution between the two groups (α<0.05)., Results: The median number of cycles to failure was 352 ± 202 and 760 ± 644 for the bleach and control groups, respectively. The survival distributions for the two groups were significantly different (p=0.020). Dentin fatigue resistance was significantly lower in the bleach group compared to the control., Conclusions: Direct bleaching of human dentin using an at-home tray bleaching protocol in situ reduced dentin fatigue resistance. This has implications for tooth fracture risk and longevity., (©Operative Dentistry, 2023.)

Objective: Our prior published work using the 2-factor model of PTSD identified four subgroups of trauma survivors on average 6 months following trauma: Resilient, Dysphoria, High Comorbid, and Severe Comorbid. Some findings indicate that low and high cortisol responses may increase risk for the development of PTSD and depression respectively, yet ways in which cortisol interacts with other physiological systems to enhance risk is unclear. This study examined the role of circulating eCBs in the development of previously identified psychopathological trajectories that is differentiated by cortisol in traumatically injured adults (N = 169)., Methods: Circulating concentrations of eCBs, 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) and N-arachidonoylethanolamine (AEA) were measured during post-injury hospitalization and on average 6 months following trauma. Differences in 2-AG and AEA among the subgroups were tested using multivariate ANCOVA., Results: Dysphoria (with highest cortisol levels) and High Comorbid subgroups exhibited higher post-injury AEA compared to the Resilient group. Dysphoria subgroup showed a significant decline in AEA by 6 months compared to Resilient and High Comorbid subgroups., Conclusion: Change in AEA over time in individuals with high post-injury cortisol may serve as a buffer against risk for severe psychopathology. Assessing AEA and cortisol levels concurrently across time may serve as indicators of risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Cecilia J Hillard is a member of the Board of Scientific Advisors for Phytecs, Inc. and has equity in Formulate Biosciences. Neither of these entities has competing interests with the data reported herein., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Given the prevalence and significant burden of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), identifying early predictors of symptom development following trauma is critical. PTSD is a heterogeneous disorder comprised of distinct symptom clusters-reexperiencing, avoidance, negative mood, and hyperarousal-that contribute to the broad range of possible symptom profiles. Affective and attentional regulation processes, such as emotional conflict detection, are impaired in individuals with PTSD; however, the neural mechanisms underlying these alterations and their predictive utility for the development of PTSD symptoms remain unclear., Method: Traumatic injury survivors ( N = 49) without traumatic brain injury were recruited from the emergency department of an urban, Level-1 trauma center. Within 1 month of trauma exposure, participants completed a well-characterized emotional conflict task during a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan. Participants returned 6-month later for a clinical assessment of PTSD symptoms. Using a region-of-interest mask derived from whole-brain voxelwise analyses during emotional conflict detection (vs. no emotional conflict detection) we examined whether differential neural activity predicted 6-month PTSD symptom cluster severity., Results: Greater activation of the right middle frontal gyrus during emotional conflict detection prospectively predicted lower PTSD avoidance symptom severity 6 months later (above and beyond the effects of self-reported baseline PTSD and depressive symptoms, previous traumatic life events, racial discrimination, age, sex, and injury severity)., Conclusions: Neural processes of emotion conflict detection measured in the early aftermath of a potentially traumatic event are useful as predictors for the development of PTSD symptoms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Purpose: This article describes the development of the Vancouver airways health literacy tool (VAHLT), a novel measure of skill-based health literacy specific to chronic airway diseases (CADs). Across several phases, psychometric characteristics of the VAHLT were examined and used to guide its development., Methods: An initial pool of 46 items was developed using input from patients, clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers. An initial patient sample (N = 532) was evaluated and used to inform item revisions. A revised 44-item pool was then evaluated using a second sample, the results of which aided in the selection of a final set of 30 items. The finalized 30-item VAHLT was then psychometrically evaluated using the second sample (N = 318). An item response theory approach was utilized to evaluate the VAHLT by assessing model fit, item parameter estimates, test and item information curves, and item characteristic curves. Reliability was assessed using ordinal coefficient alpha. We additionally assessed differential item functioning between asthma and COPD diagnoses., Results: The VAHLT demonstrated a unidimensional structure and reasonably discriminated patients in the lower range of health literacy estimates. The tool demonstrated strong reliability (α = .920). Two of the 30 items were found to exhibit non-negligible differential item functioning., Conclusions: This study presents compelling evidence of validity in several areas for the VAHLT, including content and structural validity. Further external validation studies are needed and forthcoming. Overall, this work represents a strong first step towards a novel, skill-based, and disease-specific measure of CAD-related health literacy., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

The discrimination of cues in the environment that signal danger ("fear cue") is important for survival but depends critically on the discernment of such cues from ones that pose no threat ("safety cues"). In rodents, we previously demonstrated the underlying neurobiological mechanisms that support fear versus safety discrimination and documented that these mechanisms extend to the discrimination of reward as well. While learning about reward is equally important for survival, it remains an under-studied area of research, particularly in human studies of conditional discrimination. In the present study, we translated our rodent task of fear reward and neutral discrimination (fear, reward, and neutral discrimination [FRND]) for use in humans. Undergraduate students (N = 53) completed the FRND while electrodermal activity was recorded. Skin conductance response (SCR) amplitude, a marker of arousal response, was derived for fear, reward, and neutral cues that signaled no outcome; critical trials assessed conditional discrimination using combined fear + neutral and reward + neutral cues. Participants provided likeability ratings for each cue type. Results demonstrated that participants rated reward cues the best, fear cues the worst, and neutral cues in between, while SCR amplitude was largest for fear and reward cues and lowest for neutral cues. SCR amplitudes were reduced for fear + neutral (compared to fear) and reward + neutral cues (compared to reward). Results demonstrate that the FRND is a useful paradigm for the assessment of psychological and physiological discrimination of fear and reward. Implications and directions for future work are discussed., (© 2023 Society for Psychophysiological Research.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent, debilitating, and heterogeneous psychiatric condition marked by both exaggerated threat responding and diminished positive affect. While symptom profiles of PTSD differ across individuals, symptoms also vary within individuals over the course of illness. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have provided crucial insights into the neurobiology of heightened threat responsivity in PTSD, which has aided in identifying neurobiological risk factors and treatment targets for this disorder. Despite this demonstrated utility, the application of functional magnetic resonance imaging to understanding deficits in reward responsivity in PTSD remains underexplored. Significantly, over 60% of individuals with PTSD experience anhedonia, or an inability to feel pleasure, which may reflect reward processing deficits. To better understand the neural underpinnings of reward deficits and their relevance to the onset, maintenance, and treatment of PTSD, we reviewed the functional magnetic resonance imaging literature through the framework of disease prognosis. Here, we provide insights on whether reward deficits are central to PTSD or are better explained by comorbid major depressive disorder, and we clarify how reward-related deficiencies in PTSD fit into the context of more intensely studied threat-related deficits., (Copyright © 2023 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DJJ reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Sanofi Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline. BDK report personal fees from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. GG reports patents to quantify adherence and to predict exacerbations. CH reports fees from Alphabet, granted as part of employment by Google. DMM reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Novartis. RBR reports a patent for the use of acoustics to assess inhaler adherence. JFMvB reports institutional grants from Aardex, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, European Commission COST Action 19132 ENABLE, Lung Alliance Netherlands, Novartis, Trudell Medical and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Teva, Trudell Medical, and Vertex. LGH was academic lead for the UK MRC Consortium for Stratified Medicine in Severe Asthma—Industrial Pharma partners Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Janssen, Novartis, Roche–Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and Boehringer Ingelheim; grants or contracts from GlaxoSmithKline, Schering Plough, Synairgen, Novartis and Roche–Genentech MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche–Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline; and lectures supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche–Genentech, Sanofi, Circassia, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi, and Teva. RWC reports institutional grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Aerogen, and Enterprise Ireland; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, PMD solutions, and Novartis; and a patent for the use of acoustics to assess inhaler adherence, to quantify adherence and to predict exacerbations. EM, CM, MCM, BC, IS, VB, PJK, MB, IC, JF, JH, MK, RC, LL, JW, SP, TAM, and AMNK declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions., Results: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43)., Conclusions: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Individualized prediction of treatment response may improve the value proposition of advanced treatment options in severe asthma. This study aimed to investigate the combined capacity of patient characteristics in predicting treatment response to mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma., Methods: Patient-level data were pooled from two multinational phase 3 trials of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma. We fitted penalized regression models to quantify reductions in the rate of severe exacerbations and the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5) score. The capacity of 15 covariates towards predicting treatment response was quantified by the Gini index (measuring disparities in treatment benefit) as well as observed treatment benefit within the quintiles of predicted treatment benefit., Results: There was marked variability in the ability of patient characteristics to predict treatment response; covariates explained greater heterogeneity in predicting treatment response to asthma control than to exacerbation frequency (Gini index 0.35 v. 0.24). Key predictors for treatment benefit for severe exacerbations included exacerbation history, blood eosinophil count, baseline ACQ5 score and age, and those for symptom control included blood eosinophil count and presence of nasal polyps. Overall, the average reduction in exacerbations was 0.90/year (95%CI, 0.87‒0.92) and average reduction in ACQ5 score was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.02‒0.35). Among the top 20% of patients for predicted treatment benefit, exacerbations were reduced by 2.23/year (95% CI, 2.03‒2.43) and ACQ5 score were reduced by 0.59 (95% CI, 0.19‒0.98). Among the bottom 20% of patients for predicted treatment benefit, exacerbations were reduced by 0.25/year (95% CI, 0.16‒0.34) and ACQ5 by -0.20 (95% CI, -0.51 to 0.11)., Conclusion: A precision medicine approach based on multiple patient characteristics can guide biologic therapy in severe asthma, especially in identifying patients who will not benefit as much from therapy. Patient characteristics had a greater capacity to predict treatment response to asthma control than to exacerbation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01691521 (registered September 24, 2012) and NCT01000506 (registered October 23, 2009)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Previous studies have shown reduced survival in Lewy body dementia (LBD) compared to Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the reasons for this are not known. We identified cause of death categories accounting for the reduced survival in LBD., Methods: We linked cohorts of patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) and AD, with proximal cause of death data. We examined mortality by dementia group and hazard ratios for each death category by dementia group in males and females separately. In a specific focus on the dementia group with the highest mortality rate versus reference, we examined cumulative incidence to identify the main causes of death accounting for the excess deaths., Results: Hazard ratios for death were higher in PDD and DLB compared to AD, for both males and females. PDD males had the highest hazard ratio for death across the dementia comparison groups (HR 2.7, 95% CI 2.2-3.3). Compared with AD, hazard ratios for "nervous system" causes of death were significantly elevated in all LBD groups. Additional significant cause-of-death categories included aspiration pneumonia, genitourinary causes, other respiratory causes, circulatory and a "symptoms and signs" category in PDD males; other respiratory causes in DLB males; mental disorders in PDD females; and aspiration pneumonia, genitourinary and other respiratory causes in DLB females., Conclusion: Further research and cohort development is required to investigate differences by age group, to extend cohort follow-up to the whole population and to investigate the risk-balance of interventions which may differ by dementia group., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The differential diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) poses a challenge in clinical practice and its misdiagnosis results in inappropriate treatment, increased exacerbations, and potentially death., Objective: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the Asthma/COPD Differentiation Classification (AC/DC) tool compared with primary care physicians and pulmonologists in asthma, COPD, and asthma-COPD overlap., Methods: The AC/DC machine learning-based diagnostic tool was developed using 12 parameters from electronic health records of more than 400,000 patients aged 35 years and older. An expert panel of three pulmonologists and four general practitioners from five countries evaluated 119 patient cases from a prospective observational study and provided a confirmed diagnosis (n = 116) of asthma (n = 53), COPD (n = 43), asthma-COPD overlap (n = 7), or other (n = 13). Cases were then reviewed by 180 primary care physicians and 180 pulmonologists from nine countries and by the AC/DC tool, and diagnostic accuracies were compared with reference to the expert panel diagnoses., Results: Average diagnostic accuracy of the AC/DC tool was superior to that of primary care physicians (median difference, 24%; 95% posterior credible interval: 17% to 29%; P < .0001) and was noninferior and superior (median difference, 12%; 95% posterior credible interval: 6% to 17%; P < .0001 for noninferiority and P = .0006 for superiority) to that of pulmonologists. Average diagnostic accuracies were 73%, 50%, and 61% by AC/DC tool, primary care physicians, and pulmonologists versus expert panel diagnosis, respectively., Conclusion: The AC/DC tool demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy compared with primary care physicians and pulmonologists in the diagnosis of asthma and COPD in patients aged 35 years and greater and has the potential to support physicians in the diagnosis of these conditions in clinical practice., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: FeNO may have a role as both a prognostic and predictive biomarker in combination with eosinophils for assessing responsiveness to some biological therapies., Objective: We evaluated the value of baseline FeNO, adjusted for baseline blood eosinophil levels and other clinical characteristics, as an independent predictor of treatment response to dupilumab in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma., Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST (NCT02414854), a phase 3, double-blind study in patients aged 12 years and older with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, who received dupilumab 200 or 300 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks up to 52 weeks. We assessed the annualized event rate of severe exacerbations and least-squares mean change from baseline in prebronchodilator FEV 1 at weeks 12 and 52 in relationship to baseline FeNO, adjusted for eosinophils and other clinical characteristics., Results: The annualized event rate increased with increasing baseline FeNO in placebo and decreased in dupilumab groups. The relative risk of severe exacerbations was 22·7%, 58·3%, and 69·3% lower for dupilumab versus placebo for the FeNO less than 25, 25 to less than 50, and 50 and greater parts per billion subgroups. The magnitude of FEV 1 improvement increased with higher baseline FeNO for dupilumab and was consistent across the continuum of FeNO levels in placebo. Both findings were independent of blood eosinophil levels. Significant differences were observed between FeNO subgroups., Conclusions: Increased baseline FeNO was associated with greater clinical effects in dupilumab versus placebo independently of eosinophil levels and other clinical characteristics., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Subjects without a previous history of asthma, presenting with unexplained respiratory symptoms and normal spirometry, may exhibit airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in association with underlying eosinophilic (type 2 (T2)) inflammation, consistent with undiagnosed asthma. However, the prevalence of undiagnosed asthma in these subjects is unknown., Methods: In this observational study, inhaled corticosteroid-naïve adults without previously diagnosed lung disease reporting current respiratory symptoms and showing normal pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry underwent fractional exhaled nitric oxide ( F ENO ) measurement, methacholine challenge testing and induced sputum analysis. AHR was defined as a provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (PC 20 ) <16 mg·mL -1 and T2 inflammation was defined as sputum eosinophils >2% and/or F ENO >25 ppb., Results: Out of 132 subjects (mean±sd age 57.6±14.2 years, 52% female), 47 (36% (95% CI 28-44%)) showed AHR: 20/132 (15% (95% CI 9-21%)) with PC 20 <4 mg·mL -1 and 27/132 (21% (95% CI 14-28%)) with PC 20 4-15.9 mg·mL -1 . Of 130 participants for whom sputum eosinophils, F ENO or both results were obtained, 45 (35% (95% CI 27-43%)) had T2 inflammation. 14 participants (11% (95% CI 6-16%)) had sputum eosinophils >2% and PC 20 ≥16 mg·mL -1 , suggesting eosinophilic bronchitis. The prevalence of T2 inflammation was significantly higher in subjects with PC 20 <4 mg·mL -1 (12/20 (60%)) than in those with PC 20 4-15.9 mg·mL -1 (8/27 (30%)) or ≥16 mg·mL -1 (25/85 (29%)) (p=0.01)., Conclusions: Asthma, underlying T2 airway inflammation and eosinophilic bronchitis may remain undiagnosed in a high proportion of symptomatic subjects in the community who have normal pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: L-P. Boulet reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi Regeneron for participation in multicentre studies and research projects proposed by the investigator; royalties from UptoDate and Taylor & Francis; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Covis, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck and Sanofi; is chair of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) board of directors, president of the Global Asthma Organisation (Interasma), holder of the Laval University Chair on Knowledge Transfer, Prevention and Education in Respiratory and Cardiovascular Health, and member of the Canadian Thoracic Society Respiratory Guidelines Committee. M-È. Boulay has nothing to disclose. A. Côté reports research grants from GlaxoSmithKline; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Valeo and Sanofi; participation in advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Valeo. J.M. FitzGerald has attended advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron and Theravance; received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron and Teva; received research funding from the NIH, Canadian Institute for Health Research, AllerGen National Centre for Excellence, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Regeneron, Teva and Novartis, all paid directly to his institution; and was a member of the steering committee for the International Severe Asthma Registry, Principal Investigator for the Canadian Severe Asthma Registry, and member of the GINA Science and Executive Committees. C. Bergeron reports consulting fees from Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Takeda; payments for presentations from Grifols, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Valeo. C. Lemière reports royalties from UptoDate; consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi; payments for presentations from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. M.D. Lougheed reports grants from the Manitoba Workers Compensation Board, Ontario Lung Association, Ontario Thoracic Society, Government of Ontario's Innovation Fund, Queen's University, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; payments for co-development and co-presentation of a severe asthma preparation course from the Canadian Thoracic Society and for co-development of an accredited CME module on severe asthma from MDBriefcase; participation on advisory board for AstraZeneca; membership on the Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Clinical Assembly and Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Clinical Assembly Steering Committee, Health Quality Ontario's Asthma in Adults and Asthma in Children Quality Standard Advisory Committee; is past chair of the Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Clinical Assembly, is a Canadian Thoracic Society representative on the Lung Association's board of directors and a Canadian Thoracic Society representative to the European Respiratory Society. K.L. Vandemheen has nothing to declare. S.D. Aaron reports payments for lectures from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi; participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and Covis., (Copyright ©The authors 2023. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Background: Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is a key upstream regulator driving allergic inflammatory responses. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ecleralimab, a potent inhaled neutralising antibody fragment against human TSLP, using allergen inhalation challenge (AIC) in subjects with mild atopic asthma., Methods: This was a 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, multicentre allergen bronchoprovocation study conducted at 10 centres across Canada and Germany. Subjects aged 18-60 years with stable mild atopic asthma were randomised (1:1) to receive 4 mg once-daily inhaled ecleralimab or placebo. Primary end-points were the allergen-induced change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) during the late asthmatic response (LAR) measured by area under the curve (AUC 3-7h ) and maximum percentage decrease (LAR%) on day 84, and the safety of ecleralimab. Allergen-induced early asthmatic response (EAR), sputum eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide ( F ENO ) were secondary and exploratory end-points., Results: 28 subjects were randomised to ecleralimab (n=15) or placebo (n=13). On day 84, ecleralimab significantly attenuated LAR AUC 3-7h by 64% (p=0.008), LAR% by 48% (p=0.029), and allergen-induced sputum eosinophils by 64% at 7 h (p=0.011) and by 52% at 24 h (p=0.047) post-challenge. Ecleralimab also numerically reduced EAR AUC 0-2h (p=0.097) and EAR% (p=0.105). F ENO levels were significantly reduced from baseline throughout the study (p<0.05), except at 24 h post-allergen (day 43 and day 85). Overall, ecleralimab was safe and well tolerated., Conclusion: Ecleralimab significantly attenuated allergen-induced bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation, and was safe in subjects with mild atopic asthma., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: G.M. Gauvreau reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, and grants from Biohaven, Genentech and BioGaia, outside of the submitted work. J.M. Hohlfeld reports grants from Novartis AG, during the conduct of the study; grants from AltamiraPharma GmbH, Astellas Pharma GmbH, AstraZeneca AB, Bayer AG, Beiersdorf AG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, CSL Behring GmbH, Desitin Arzneimittel GmbH, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Genentech, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline GmbH & Co. KG, Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, M&P Pharma AG, Novartis AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH and UCB Pharma GmbH and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, CSL Behring GmbH, Merck & Co, Inc., Nocion Therapeutics, Inc., HAL Allergy Group and Novartis AG, outside of the submitted work. M.J. FitzGerald reported receipt of research funding from Novartis which was paid directly to UBC for the completion of this study and has also been in receipt of AllerGen CIHR and NIH grant funding unrelated to the current study. L-P. Boulet reports receiving grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Regeneron, personal fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Regeneron, and honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, outside of the submitted work. D.W. Cockcroft reports receiving grants from the Department of Medicine University of Saskatchewan, AstraZeneca, Novartis, CSACI and AllerGen NCE, outside of the submitted work. B.E. Davis has nothing to declare. S. Korn reports receiving personal fees from Novartis, outside of the submitted work. O. Kornmann reports receiving personal fees from Sanofi, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Adagio, AstraZeneca, Santhera and Chiesi, outside of the submitted work. R. Leigh reports receiving personal fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Genzyme and Valeo Pharma Inc., outside of the submitted work. I. Mayers has nothing to declare. H. Watz reports receiving grants and personal fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside of the submitted work. S.S. Grant, M. Jain and P.E. Pertel are employees of Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research. M. Cabanski was an employee of Novartis during the time of the study. I. Jones and J.R. Lecot are employees of Novartis Pharma AG. H. Cao is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. P.M. O'Byrne has obtained grants in aid of research from Novartis for the conduct of the current study, as well as from AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Biohaven, Merck and Bayer for research outside the current study, and received personal fees for consulting or speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Medimmune, Chiesi, Menarini and Covis., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Background: It remains unclear why some symptomatic individuals with asthma or COPD remain undiagnosed. Here, we compare patient and physician characteristics between symptomatic individuals with obstructive lung disease (OLD) who are undiagnosed and individuals with physician-diagnosed OLD., Methods: Using random-digit dialling and population-based case finding, we recruited 451 participants with symptomatic undiagnosed OLD and 205 symptomatic control participants with physician-diagnosed OLD. Data on symptoms, quality of life and healthcare utilisation were analysed. We surveyed family physicians of participants in both groups to elucidate differences in physician practices that could contribute to undiagnosed OLD., Results: Participants with undiagnosed OLD had lower mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s percentage predicted compared with those who were diagnosed (75.2% versus 80.8%; OR 0.975, 95% CI 0.963-0.987). They reported greater psychosocial impacts due to symptoms and worse energy and fatigue than those with diagnosed OLD. Undiagnosed OLD was more common in participants whose family physicians were practising for >15 years and in those whose physicians reported that they were likely to prescribe respiratory medications without doing spirometry. Undiagnosed OLD was more common among participants who had never undergone spirometry (OR 10.83, 95% CI 6.18-18.98) or who were never referred to a specialist (OR 5.92, 95% CI 3.58-9.77). Undiagnosed OLD was less common among participants who had required emergency department care (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.97)., Conclusions: Individuals with symptomatic undiagnosed OLD have worse pre-bronchodilator lung function and present with greater psychosocial impacts on quality of life compared with their diagnosed counterparts. They were less likely to have received appropriate investigations and specialist referral for their respiratory symptoms., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M. Cherian reports no conflict of interest. K.M.A. Magner reports no conflict of interest. G.A. Whitmore reports no conflict of interest. K.L. Vandemheen reports no conflict of interest. C. Bergeron reports grants, contracts or honoraria from Novartis, Biohaven, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Valeo and Grifols; and advisory board participation Sanofi, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda and Valeo. L-P. Boulet reports grants, contracts, consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi-Regeneron, Covis and Novartis; royalties or licences from UptoDate and Taylor & Francis; leadership roles with the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), Global Asthma Association (INTERASMA) and Canadian Thoracic Society; and holds the Laval University Chair on Knowledge Transfer, Prevention and Education in Respiratory and Cardiovascular Health. A. Cote reports grants, contracts, consulting fees or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Valeo, Sanofi-Regeneron and Covis; and advisory board participation with AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Valeo. S.K. Field reports grants, contracts, consulting fees or honoraria from Bayer, Insmed, Merck, Valeo and GlaxoSmithKline. E. Penz reports grants, contracts, consulting fees or honoraria from the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, CIHR, Respiratory Research Centre, SCPOR, AstraZeneca, Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Genzyme, ICBEM and Boehringer Ingelheim; and leadership roles with the Canadian Thoracic Society COPD Assembly, CIHR Institute Advisory Board and Youth4Change. R.A. McIvor reports no conflict of interest. C. Lemière repots grants, contracts, consulting fees or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Novartis; and royalties or licences from UptoDate. S. Gupta reports no conflict of interest. I. Mayers reports no conflict of interest. M. Bhutani reports grants, contracts, consulting fees, support for travel or honoraria from the CIHR, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Grifols, Sanofi, Covis, Valeo, Lung Association of Saskatchewan, Canadian Thoracic Society and Lung Association of Alberta and Northwest Territories; and leadership roles with the Canadian Thoracic Society and Alberta Health Services. P. Hernandez reports grants, contracts, support for travel or honoraria from the CIHR, Cyclomedia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vertex, Grifols, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen and Canadian Thoracic Society; advisory board participation with Acceleron, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Covis, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda and Valeo; and leadership roles with the Canadian Thoracic Society. M.D. Lougheed reports grants, contracts or honoraria from the CIHR, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Canadian Thoracic Society and MDBriefcase; advisory board participation with AstraZeneca; leadership roles with the Canadian Thoracic Society, Health Quality Ontario and the Lung Association. C.J. Licskai reports no conflict of interest. T. Azher reports no conflict of interest. M. Ainslie reports no conflict of interest. N. Ezer reports grants, contracts or honoraria from the CIHR, Rossy Cancer Network, Covis Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Fédération des Omnipracticiens du Québec and Médecin du Québec Magazine; advisory board participation with GlaxoSmithKline; leadership role with the Quebec Ministry of Health Lung Cancer Screening Implementation Committee; and receipt of study drug from Covis. S. Mulpuru reports no conflict of interest. S.D. Aaron reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline; and advisory board participation with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi., (Copyright ©The authors 2023. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Background: The 52-week, phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST study (NCT02414854) in patients aged above or equal to 12 years with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab 200 mg and 300 mg every 2 weeks vs matched placebo., Objective: To assess whether dupilumab improves clinical outcomes in QUEST patients with persistent airflow obstruction (PAO) defined as post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio less than 0.7 at baseline., Methods: End points were annualized rate of severe exacerbations, pre and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second over time, proportion achieving reversal of PAO, and quality of life. Efficacy was evaluated in patients with or without PAO at baseline in subpopulations with eosinophils ≥ 150 cells/µL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 25 ppb or eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL and FeNO ≥ 25 ppb., Results: Of 1902 patients enrolled in QUEST, 1039 (55%) had PAO at baseline. Dupilumab vs placebo rapidly and significantly improved lung function in patients with PAO and elevated type 2 inflammatory biomarkers at baseline. Dupilumab improved probability of reversing airflow obstruction (hazard ratio vs placebo 1.616 [95% confidence interval, 1.272-2.052] and 1.813 [1.291-2.546]; both P < .001) and significantly reduced severe exacerbations by 69% (relative risk, 0.411; 95% confidence interval [0.327-0.516]; P < .0001) and by 75% (0.252 [0.178-0.356]; P < .0001) in patients with PAO with eosinophils ≥ 150 cells/µL or FeNO ≥ 25 ppb and eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL and FeNO ≥ 25 ppb, respectively. Similar results were observed in patient subgroups without PAO., Conclusion: In patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, treatment with dupilumab facilitates reversal of PAO status and improves clinical outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02414854., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Respiratory self-care places considerable demands on patients with chronic airways disease (AD), as they must obtain, understand and apply information required to follow their complex treatment plans. If clinical and lifestyle information overwhelms patients' HL capacities, it reduces their ability to self-manage. This review outlines important societal, individual, and healthcare system factors that influence disease management and outcomes among patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-the two most common ADs. For this review, we undertook a comprehensive literature search, conducted reference list searches from prior HL-related publications, and added insights from international researchers and scientists with an interest in HL. We identified methodological limitations in currently available HL measurement tools in respiratory care. We also summarized the issues contributing to low HL and system-level cultural incompetency that continue to be under-recognized in AD management and contribute to suboptimal patient outcomes. Given that impaired HL is not commonly recognized as an important factor in AD care, we propose a three-level patient-centered model (strategies) designed to integrate HL considerations, with the goal of enabling health systems to enhance service delivery to meet the needs of all AD patients., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Due to its heterogeneity, the prediction of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) development after traumtic injury is difficult. Recent machine learning approaches have yielded insight into predicting PTSD symptom trajectories. Using data collected within 1 month of traumatic injury, we applied eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) to classify admitted and discharged patients (hospitalized, n = 192; nonhospitalized, n = 214), recruited from a Level 1 trauma center, according to PTSD symptom trajectories. Trajectories were identified using latent class mixed models on PCL-5 scores collected at baseline, 1-3 months posttrauma, and 6 months posttrauma. In both samples, nonremitting, remitting, and resilient PTSD symptom trajectories were identified. In the admitted patient sample, a unique delayed trajectory emerged. Machine learning classifiers (i.e., XGB) were developed and tested on the admitted patient sample and externally validated on the discharged sample with biological and clinical self-report baseline variables as predictors. For external validation sets, prediction was fair for nonremitting versus other trajectories, areas under the curve (AUC = .70); good for nonremitting versus resilient trajectories, AUCs = .73-.76; and prediction failed for nonremitting versus remitting trajectories, AUCs = .46-.48. However, poor precision (< .57) across all models suggests limited generalizability of nonremitting symptom trajectory prediction from admitted to discharged patient samples. Consistency in symptom trajectory identification across samples supports prior studies on the stability of PTSD symptom trajectories following trauma exposure; however, continued work and replication with larger samples are warranted to understand overlapping and unique predictive features of PTSD in different traumatic injury populations., (© 2022 International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.)

Background: The Global Initiative for Asthma report recommends consideration of add-on biologics for patients with type 2 inflammation (blood eosinophils ≥150 cells/μL, fractional exhaled nitric oxide [Feno] ≥20 parts per billion or allergic asthma) whose asthma cannot be controlled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids. In QUEST (NCT02414854), add-on dupilumab versus placebo was efficacious in patients with uncontrolled, moderate to severe asthma, including those with eosinophils greater than or equal to 150 cells/μL and/or Feno greater than or equal to 25 parts per billion., Objective: To assess dupilumab efficacy in patients with a type 2 phenotype in the presence or absence of allergic asthma phenotype., Methods: Patients aged 12 years or older received add-on dupilumab 200/300 mg versus matched placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. Allergic asthma phenotype was defined as baseline serum total IgE greater than or equal to 30 IU/mL and 1 or more perennial aeroallergen-specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L. Annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations and changes from study baseline in prebronchodilator and postbronchodilator FEV 1 were evaluated in patients with allergic and nonallergic phenotype with baseline blood eosinophils greater than or equal to 150 cells/μL and/or Feno greater than or equal to 20 parts per billion., Results: Of 1902 patients in QUEST, 83.3% had eosinophils and/or Feno above Global Initiative for Asthma thresholds; 56.9% had evidence for allergic asthma. Dupilumab significantly reduced the rate of severe asthma exacerbations in patients with (48.8%) and without (64.0%) evidence of allergic asthma and improved prebronchodilator and postbronchodilator FEV 1 in patients with elevated type 2 biomarkers, irrespective of whether they showed evidence of an allergic asthma phenotype., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 biomarkers over Global Initiative for Asthma thresholds, dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function. Efficacy was not impacted by allergic status., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Results of neuroimaging datasets aggregated from multiple sites may be biased by site-specific profiles in participants' demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as MRI acquisition protocols and scanning platforms. We compared the impact of four different harmonization methods on results obtained from analyses of cortical thickness data: (1) linear mixed-effects model (LME) that models site-specific random intercepts (LME INT ), (2) LME that models both site-specific random intercepts and age-related random slopes (LME INT+SLP ), (3) ComBat, and (4) ComBat with a generalized additive model (ComBat-GAM). Our test case for comparing harmonization methods was cortical thickness data aggregated from 29 sites, which included 1,340 cases with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (6.2-81.8 years old) and 2,057 trauma-exposed controls without PTSD (6.3-85.2 years old). We found that, compared to the other data harmonization methods, data processed with ComBat-GAM was more sensitive to the detection of significant case-control differences (Χ 2 (3) = 63.704, p < 0.001) as well as case-control differences in age-related cortical thinning (Χ 2 (3) = 12.082, p = 0.007). Both ComBat and ComBat-GAM outperformed LME methods in detecting sex differences (Χ 2 (3) = 9.114, p = 0.028) in regional cortical thickness. ComBat-GAM also led to stronger estimates of age-related declines in cortical thickness (corrected p-values < 0.001), stronger estimates of case-related cortical thickness reduction (corrected p-values < 0.001), weaker estimates of age-related declines in cortical thickness in cases than controls (corrected p-values < 0.001), stronger estimates of cortical thickness reduction in females than males (corrected p-values < 0.001), and stronger estimates of cortical thickness reduction in females relative to males in cases than controls (corrected p-values < 0.001). Our results support the use of ComBat-GAM to minimize confounds and increase statistical power when harmonizing data with non-linear effects, and the use of either ComBat or ComBat-GAM for harmonizing data with linear effects., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest Dr. Abdallah has served as a consultant, speaker and/or on advisory boards for FSV7, Lundbeck, Psilocybin Labs, Genentech and Janssen, and editor of Chronic Stress for Sage Publications, Inc.; he has filed a patent for using mTOR inhibitors to augment the effects of antidepressants (filed on August 20, 2018). Dr. Davidson is the founder and president of, and serves on the board of directors for, the non-profit organization Healthy Minds Innovations, Inc. Dr. Jahanshad, Dr. Thompson and Dr. Ching received partial research support from Biogen, Inc. (Boston, USA) for research unrelated to the content of this manuscript. Dr. Krystal is a consultant for AbbVie, Inc., Amgen, Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Biomedisyn Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Euthymics Bioscience, Inc., Neurovance, Inc., FORUM Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Research & Development, Lundbeck Research USA, Novartis Pharma AG, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., Sage Therapeutics, Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Takeda Industries; is on the Scientific Advisory Board for Lohocla Research Corporation, Mnemosyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Naurex, Inc., and Pfizer; is a stockholder in Biohaven Pharmaceuticals; holds stock options in Mnemosyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; holds patents for Dopamine and Noradrenergic Reuptake Inhibitors in Treatment of Schizophrenia, US Patent No. 5,447,948 (issued September 5, 1995), and Glutamate Modulating Agents in the Treatment of Mental Disorders, U.S. Patent No. 8,778,979 (issued July 15, 2014); and filed a patent for Intranasal Administration of Ketamine to Treat Depression. U.S. Application No. 14/197,767 (filed on March 5, 2014); US application or Patent Cooperation Treaty international application No. 14/306,382 (filed on June 17, 2014); Filed a patent for using mTOR inhibitors to augment the effects of antidepressants (filed on August 20, 2018). Dr. Schmahl is a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Stein has received research grants and/or consultancy honoraria from Lundbeck and Sun. Dr. Lebois reports unpaid membership on the Scientific Committee for the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) and spousal license payment for Vanderbilt IP from Acadia Pharmaceuticals unrelated to the topic of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Fungal endophytes in perennial ryegrass are essential to New Zealand's pastoral system due to anti-insect effects. However, endophytes also produce compounds which can be detrimental to animals. Furthermore, as these toxins have been detected in the milk and fat of animals grazing common-toxic (containing lolitrem B) or AR37 endophyte-infected herbage they could enter the human food chain. To assess the risk to human health mice were fed for 90 days with three dose rates of lolitrem B and of AR37. Parameters indicative of animal health were measured as well as chemical, hematological and histological analysis of samples collected on day 90. Since endophyte toxin residues have been detected in milk, they could be transferred from mother to offspring via breast milk. To evaluate possible effects on reproduction two complete generations of mice were fed lolitrem B or AR37. At the dose rates given no adverse effects were observed in either study. The 100-fold safety factor to allow the use of animal data in human health assessments was applied and by considering the concentrations of lolitrem B or AR37 metabolites which could be ingested by a consumer it is highly unlikely that they pose any risk to human health.

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., Competing Interests: Mohsen Sadatsafavi has received honoraria from AZ, BI, and GSK for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript and has received research funding from AZ and BI directly into his research account from AZ for unrelated projects. Trung N. Tran is an employee of AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Nigel Chong Boon Wong reports grants from Optimum Patient Care Global, grants from AstraZeneca Ltd, during the conduct of the study. Nasloon Ali was an employee of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) at the time this research was conducted. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Con Ariti is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Esther Garcia Gil was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time this research was conducted. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Anthony Newell was an employee of Optimum Patient Care (OPC) at the time this research was conducted. OPC is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Marianna Alacqua was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time this research was conducted. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Mona Al-Ahmad has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. Alan Altraja has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; personal fees from Teva, Shire Pharmaceuticals and CSL Behring, sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Sanofi, and Novartis; and has been a member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Riyad Al-Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi, reports personal fees from Novartis and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Mohit Bhutani: has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Covis pharmaceuticals; has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Genzyme, Boehringer Ingelheim Leif Bjermer has (in the last three years) received lecture or advisory board fees from Alk-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, and Teva. Anne-Sofie Bjerrum has received lecture fees from Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis. Arnaud Bourdin has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron and consultancies with AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. Lakmini Bulathsinhala is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Anna von Bülow reports speakers fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GSK and Novartis, outside the submitted work. She has also attended advisory board for Novartis and AstraZeneca. John Busby reports personal fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. Giorgio Walter Canonica has received research grants, as well as lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. Victoria Carter is an employee of Optimum Patient Care, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry and reports grants from Optimum Patient Care Global, during the conduct of the study Borja G. Cosio declares grants from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, Menarini, Teva and GSK; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, Menarini, Teva and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GSK, Menarini, Sanofi, Teva and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Richard W. Costello has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva. He is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen, has received personal fees from Respirasense, personal fees from PfizerBioNTech, during the conduct of the study and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence and prediction of exacerbations, issued to 212. J. Mark FitzGerald reports grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi Regeneron, Novartis paid directly to UBC. Personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards: AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi Regeneron, TEVA. João A Fonseca reports grants from or research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi Regeneron and Novartis. Personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards: AstraZeneca, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron and TEVA. Liam G. Heaney declares he has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Circassia, Evelo Biosciences, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance and Teva; he has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; he is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. Enrico Heffler participates in speaking activities and industry advisory committees for AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Genzyme, GSK, Novartis, Regeneron, Stallergenes-Greer, TEVA, Circassia and Nestlè Purina, grants from AstraZeneca and GSK Mark Hew declares grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. Flavia Hoyte declares honoraria from AstraZeneca. She has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Teva, Sanofi and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), for which her institution has received funding. Takashi Iwanaga declares grants from Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Kyorin, MeijiSeika Pharma, Teijin Pharma, Ono, and Taiho, and lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and AstraZeneca. David J. Jackson has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Napp, Chiesi, Sanofi Regeneron, Novartis and research grant funding from AstraZeneca. Rupert C. Jones declares grants from Astra Zeneca, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis OPRI and Teva and personal fees for consultancy, speakers’ fees or travel support from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis and OPRI. Mariko Siyue Koh reports grant support from AstraZeneca, and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital (Singapore General Hospital) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Piotr Kuna reports personal fees from Adamed, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Berlin Chemie Manarini, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Lekam, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from Polpharma, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Teva, personal fees from Zentiva, personal fees from FAES, personal fees from Glenmark, outside the submitted work Désirée Larenas Linnemann reports speaker or personal fees from ALK, Alakos, Armstrong, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Gossamer, Grunenthal, GSK, Mylan/Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Purina institute, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Carnot, Viatris, and grants from Sanofi, AbbVie, ALK, AstraZeneca, Circassia, Chiesi, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Purina Institute and UCB, outside the submitted work Sverre Lehmann declares receipt of lecture (personal) and advisory board (to employer) fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Lauri A. Lehtimäki declares personal fees for consultancy, lectures and attending advisory boards from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Circassia, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Sanofi, and Teva. Juntao Lyu is an employee of Optimum Patient Care (OPC). OPC is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Jorge Maspero reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GSK, personal fees from IMMUNOTEK, personal fees from SANOFI, outside the submitted work. Andrew N. Menzies-Gow has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi and Teva, andhas received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva and Sanofi. He has participated in research with AstraZeneca for which his institution has been remunerated and has attended international conferences with Teva. He has had consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos declares research support from Gerolymatos, Menarini, Nutricia, and Vian; and consultancy/speaker fees from ASIT, AZ, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, HAL Allergy, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, and Nutricia, OM Pharma, Sanofi, and Takeda, grant from Capricare. Andriana I. Papaioannou has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GSK, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. Luis Perez-de-Llano declares non-financial support, personal fees, and grants from Teva, Sanofi and AstraZeneca, Chesi; non-financial support and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Esteve, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, and Novartis; personal fees from MSD, TECHDOW PHARMA, Leo-Pharma, GEBRO and GILEAD; non-financial support from Menairi, grants, non-financial support from FAES during the conduct of the study. Diahn-Warng Perng (Steve) received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi and Orient Pharma Matthew Peters declares personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Paul E. Pfeffer has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi and GSK; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and Novartis, for which his institution received remuneration; non-financial support from Chiesi; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Celeste M. Porsbjerg has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Todor A. Popov declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. Chin Kook Rhee declares consultancy and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, MSD, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, and Teva-Handok. Sundeep Salvi declares research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, GSK Camille Taillé has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi and Novartis, for unrelated projects. Carlos A. Torres-Duque has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis; has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols and Novartis. Charlotte S. Ulrik has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, ALK-Abello, GSK, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Chiesi, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, InsMed, ALK-Abello, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Regeneron, Chiesi and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, MundiPharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Genzyme; has received personal fees from Pfizer. Seung Won Ra has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Eileen Wang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Wefight, and Clinical Care Options. She has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Novartis, Teva, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. She has received personal fees from Wefight. Michael E. Wechsler reports receiving consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GSK, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi and Teva; personal fees from Amgen, Avalo, Cerecor, Cytoreason, Eli Lilly, Equillium, Incyte, Kinaset, Phylaxis, Pulmatrix, Rapt and Sound Biologics. David B. Price has advisory board membership with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Thermofisher; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma, Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Thermofisher; funding for patient enrolment or completion of research from Novartis; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2022 Chen et al.)