Search

David Price,1,2 William Henley,1,3 José Eduardo Delfini Cançado,4 Leonardo M Fabbri,5 Huib AM Kerstjens,6 Alberto Papi,7 Nicolas Roche,8 Elif Şen,9 Dave Singh,10 Claus F Vogelmeier,11 Elena Nudo,12 Victoria Carter,1 Derek Skinner,1 Rebecca Vella,1 Joan B Soriano,13 Maxim Kots,12 George Georges14 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Health Statistics Group, Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK; 4Santa Casa de São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil; 5Respiratory Medicine, Department of Translational Medicine and for Romagna, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 6Department of Pulmonary Diseases, University of Groningen and University Medical Centre Groningen, and Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), Groningen, the Netherlands; 7Respiratory Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 8Department of Respiratory Medicine, APHP-Centre University of Paris, Cochin Hospital and Institute (UMR1016), Paris, France; 9Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; 10Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 11Department of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Marburg, Member of the German Centre for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 12Global Medical Affairs, Chiesi Farmaceutici, S.p.A, Parma, Italy; 13Respiratory Department, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa and Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 14Global Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici, S.p.A, Parma, ItalyCorrespondence: David Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, E

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1,2 Trung N Tran,3 Brooklyn Stanley,4 Victoria Ann Carter,4 Josef S Smolen,5 Arnaud Bourdin,6 J Mark Fitzgerald7 ,†Tim Raine,8 Jatin Chapaneri,2 Benjamin Emmanuel,3 David J Jackson,9,10 David B Price4,11 1Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guys & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 2AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 5Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 6Université de Montpellier, CHU Montpellier, PhyMedExp, INSERM, CNRS, Montpellier, France; 7The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 8Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK; 9Guy’s Severe Asthma Centre, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 10School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 11Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK†J. Mark Fitzgerald passed away on January 18, 2022Correspondence: David B Price, Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building-Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgPurpose: Associations between systemic glucocorticoid (SGC) exposure and risk for adverse outcomes have spurred a move toward steroid-sparing treatment strategies. Real-world changes in SGC exposure over time, after the introduction of steroid-sparing treatment strategies, reveal areas of successful risk mitigation as well as unmet needs.Patients and Methods: A population-based ecological study was performed from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database to describe SGC prescribing trends of steroid-sparing treatment strategies in primary care practices before and after licensure of biologics in the United Kingdom from 1990 to 2019. Each analysis year included patients aged ≥ 5

Gary Tse,1,2 Benjamin Emmanuel,3 Cono Ariti,1 Mona Bafadhel,4 Alberto Papi,5 Victoria Carter,1 Jiandong Zhou,1 Derek Skinner,1 Xiao Xu,3 Hana Müllerová,6 David Price1,7 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2School of Nursing and Health Studies, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Department of Immunobiology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK; 5Respiratory Medicine, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 6AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 7Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are often prescribed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations.Methods: This observational, individually matched historical cohort study used electronic medical records (1987– 2019) from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to evaluate adverse outcomes in patients with COPD who used OCS (OCS cohort) and those not exposed to OCS (non-OCS cohort). Risk of 17 adverse outcomes was estimated using proportional hazard regression.Results: Of 323,722 patients, 106,775 (33.0%) had COPD-related OCS prescriptions. Of the 106,775 patients in the overall cohort, 58,955 had HES linkage and were eligible for inclusion in the OCS cohort. The individual matching process identified 53,299 pairs of patients to form the OCS and non-OCS cohorts. Median follow-up post-index was 6.9 years (OCS cohort) and 5.4 years (non-OCS cohort). Adjusted risk of multiple adverse outcomes was higher for the OCS cohort versus the non-OCS co

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., 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.

Background: It is unclear whether patients with asthma benefit from stepping up to high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Objective: To determine the effectiveness of stepping up to high-dose ICSs. Methods: A historic cohort study of patients with asthma (≥13 years old), identified from 2 large UK electronic medical record databases, was conducted. Patients who remained on medium-dose ICSs were compared with those who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs, whereas patients who stepped up from low- to medium-dose ICSs were compared with those who stepped up from low- to high-dose ICSs. Time to first severe exacerbation (primary outcome) between treatment groups was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and the number of exacerbations and antibiotics courses was analyzed using negative binomial regression. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to handle confounding. Results: The mean follow-up time to first exacerbation was 2.7 ± 2.7 years for those who remained on stable medium-dose ICSs and 2.0 ± 2.2 years for those who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs. A similar pattern was noted for those who stepped up from low- to medium-dose ICSs (2.6 ± 2.5 years) and from low- to high-dose ICSs (2.3 ± 2.5 years). Patients who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs (n = 6879) had a higher risk of exacerbations during follow-up compared with those who remained on medium-dose ICSs (n = 51,737; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.12-1.22). This was similar in patients stepping up from low- to high-dose (n = 3232) compared with low- to medium-dose (n = 12,659) ICSs (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17). A step-up to high-dose ICSs was also associated with a higher number of asthma exacerbations and antibiotics courses. No significant difference in associations was found across subgroups of patients with different blood eosinophil counts. Conclusions: We found no evidence that a step-up to high-dose ICSs is effective in prevent

Anita Lynam,1 Charlotte Curtis,1 Brooklyn Stanley,2,3 Heath Heatley,3 Chloe Worthington,2,3 Emma-Jane Roberts,2,3 Christopher Price,2,3 Victoria Carter,2,3 John Dennis,1 Andrew McGovern,1 David Price2,3 1Momentum Data, Pendragon House, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, UK; 2Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, SingaporeCorrespondence: Andrew McGovern, Momentum Data, Pendragon House, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, UK, Email andy.mcgovern@momentumdata.co.ukIntroduction: Electronic medical records (EMRs) maintained in primary care in the UK and collected and stored in EMR databases offer a world-leading resource for observational clinical research. We aimed to profile one such database: the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD).Methods and Participants: The OPCRD, incepted in 2010, is a growing primary care EMR database collecting data from 992 general practices within the UK. It covers over 16.6 million patients across all four countries within the UK, and is broadly representative of the UK population in terms of age, sex, ethnicity and socio-economic status. Patients have a mean duration of 11.7 years’ follow-up (SD 17.50), with a majority having key summary data from birth to last data entry. Data for the OPCRD are collected incrementally monthly and extracted from all of the major clinical software systems used within the UK and across all four coding systems (Read version 2, Read CTV3, SNOMED DM+D and SNOMED CT codes). Via quality-improvement programmes provided to GP surgeries, the OPCRD also includes patient-reported outcomes from a range of disease-specific validated questionnaires, with over 66,000 patient responses on asthma, COPD, and COVID-19. Further, bespoke data collection is possible by working with GPs to collect new research via patient-reported questionnaires.Findings to Date: The OPCRD has contributed to over 96 peer-reviewed research publications since its inception encompassing a broad range of med

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1 Claire McBrien,2 Bindhu Unni,3 Celeste M Porsbjerg,4 Mona Al-Ahmad,5 Christopher S Ambrose,6 Karin Dahl Assing,7 Anna von Bülow,4 John Busby,8 Borja G Cosio,9 J Mark FitzGerald,10 Esther Garcia Gil,11 Susanne Hansen,12 Liam G aHeaney,8 Mark Hew,13,14 David J Jackson,15,16 Maria Kallieri,17 Stelios Loukides,17 Njira L Lugogo,18 Andriana I Papaioannou,17 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,19 Wendy C Moore,20 Luis A Perez-de-Llano,21 Linda M Rasmussen,22 Johannes M Schmid,23 Salman Siddiqui,24 Marianna Alacqua,25 Trung N Tran,6 Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,26 John W Upham,27 Eileen Wang,28,29 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,3,30 Victoria A Carter,3,30 Isha Chaudhry,3,30 Neva Eleangovan,3,30 Ruth B Murray,3,30 Chris A Price,3,30 David B Price3,30,31 1UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 2Kingston Hospital, London, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 4Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 5Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait; 6AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 7Department of Respiratory Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; 8UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 9Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 10The Centre for Lung Health, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, UBC, Vancouver, Canada; 11AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 12Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 13Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; 14Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 15UK Severe Asthma Network andNational Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 16School of Immunology &amp

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 di

Introduction: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors. Methods: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015–2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018–2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/ switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups. Results: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti–IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti–IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization. Conclusion: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.

Wenjia Chen,1 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,2 Trung N Tran,3 Ruth B Murray,4 Chong Boon Nigel Wong,1 Nasloon Ali,4,5 Cono Ariti,4,5 Esther Garcia Gil,6 Anthony Newell,5,7 Marianna Alacqua,8 Mona Al-Ahmad,9 Alan Altraja,10 Riyad Al-Lehebi,11,12 Mohit Bhutani,13 Leif Bjermer,14 Anne Sofie Bjerrum,15 Arnaud Bourdin,16 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,4,5 Anna von Bülow,17 John Busby,18 Giorgio Walter Canonica,19,20 Victoria Carter,4,5 George C Christoff,21 Borja G Cosio,22 Richard W Costello,23 J Mark FitzGerald,24 João A Fonseca,25 Kwang Ha Yoo,26 Liam G Heaney,27 Enrico Heffler,19,20 Mark Hew,28,29 Ole Hilberg,30 Flavia Hoyte,31,32 Takashi Iwanaga,33 David J Jackson,34,35 Rupert C Jones,36 Mariko Siyue Koh,37,38 Piotr Kuna,39 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,40 Sverre Lehmann,41 Lauri A Lehtimäki,42,43 Juntao Lyu,5,7 Bassam Mahboub,44,45 Jorge Maspero,46,47 Andrew N Menzies-Gow,48 Concetta Sirena,49 Nikolaos Papadopoulos,50,51 Andriana I Papaioannou,52 Luis Pérez de Llano,53,54 Diahn-Warng Perng,55,56 Matthew Peters,57 Paul E Pfeffer,58,59 Celeste M Porsbjerg,17 Todor A Popov,60 Chin Kook Rhee,61 Sundeep Salvi,62 Camille Taillé,63 Christian Taube,64 Carlos A Torres-Duque,65 Charlotte S Ulrik,66 Seung Won Ra,67 Eileen Wang,31,32 Michael E Wechsler,68 David B Price4,5,69 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 6AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 7Optimum Patient Care, Queensland, VIC, Australia; 8AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 9Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 10Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 11De

Kerry L Hancock,1 Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich,2– 4 John D Blakey,5,6 Mark Hew,7,8 Li Ping Chung,9 Biljana Cvetkovski,3 Scott Claxton,10 Peter Del Fante,11 Eve Denton,7,8 Joe Doan,12 Kanchanamala Ranasinghe,13,14 Lucy Morgan,15– 17 Anita Sharma,18 Peter K Smith,19 Deb Stewart,20 Philip J Thompson,21– 23 Russell Wiseman,24 John W Upham,25 Kwok Y Yan,26 Victoria Carter,27 Kiranjeet Dhillon,28 Florian Heraud,28 Thao Le,27 Rebecca Vella,28 David Price27– 30 On behalf of the OPCA Improving Asthma outcomes in Australia Research Group1Chandlers Hill Surgery, Happy Valley, SA, 5159, Australia; 2Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia; 3Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Glebe, MSW, 2037, Australia; 4Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia; 5Respiratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Hospital Ave, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia; 6Curtin University Medical School, Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia; 7Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia; 8Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, 3800, Australia; 9Fiona Stanley Hospital, 11 Robin Warren Dr, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia; 10Genesis Care Sleep and Respiratory, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia; 11Hutt Street General Practice, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia; 12HealthPlus Medical Centre, Kogarah, NSW, 2217, Australia; 13School of Medicine, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia; 14Cannon Hill Family Doctors, Cannon Hill, QLD, 4170, Australia; 15Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 16Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 17Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 18Platinum Medical Centre, Chermside, QLD, 4032, Australia; 19Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia; 20Adjunct Lecturer, School of Medicine, University

Stephanie Chen,1 Marc Miravitlles,2 Chin Kook Rhee,3 Ian D Pavord,4 Rupert Jones,5 Victoria Carter,6 Benjamin Emmanuel,1 Marianna Alacqua,7 David B Price6,8 1BioPharmaceuticals Medical, Respiratory & Immunology, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 2Pneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain; 3College of Medicine, Seoul St Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 4Oxford Respiratory NIHR BRC, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 5Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK; 6Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 7BioPharmaceuticals Medical, Respiratory & Immunology, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 8Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06-76, Midview City, Singapore, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience frequent exacerbations despite maximal inhaled therapy (“triple therapy”), possibly leading to high health care resource utilization (HCRU).Aim: Describe characteristics, future HCRU, and mortality of patients with COPD who experience frequent exacerbations despite triple therapy; characterize individuals who may be candidates for biologic therapies.Methods: This descriptive observational study used primary care data of patients aged ≥ 40 years in the United Kingdom receiving maintenance therapy for COPD who had ≥ 1 year of data prior to index date and ≥ 1 year of follow-up data. We described these patients’ clinical and demographic characteristics, including blood eosinophil counts (BEC), pattern of exacerbation

Price DB, Henley W, Cançado JED, et al. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2022;17:355–370 On page 356, last paragraph of the Introduction section, the paragraph should be corrected from “ …Collectively, there is a requirement for a real- world study comparing the use of extrafine particle fixed dose combination beclometasone dipropionate (ef-FDC-BDP; with a MMAD of 1.1μm in FOSTER® and TRIMBOW® NEXTHALER® DPIs and 1.3μm in FOSTER® pMDI) with other ICSs, such as fine particle fluticasone (fp-FDC-F; with a MMAD of 3.9μm and 3.2μm for propionate (SERETIDE® DISKUS®) and furoate (RELVAR® ELLIPTA®) esters respectively).21–23 to “ …Collectively, there is a requirement for a real-world study comparing the use of extrafine particle fixed dose combination beclometasone dipropionate (ef-FDC-BDP; with a MMAD of 1.1µm in TRIMBOW® pMDI and 1.3µm in FOSTER® pMDI) with other ICSs, such as fine particle fluticasone (fp-FDC-F; with a MMAD of 3.9µm and 3.2µm for propionate (SERETIDE® DISKUS®) and furoate (RELVAR® ELLIPTA®) esters respectively).21-23 The authors apologize for this error and advise they do not affect the results of the paper. Read the original article

Chester Fox,1,2 Wilson Pace,1,3 Elias Brandt,1 Victoria Carter,4,5 Ku-Lang Chang,6 Chelsea Edwards,7 Alexander Evans,4 Gabriela Gaona,1 MeiLan K Han,8 Alan Kaplan,5,9,10 Rachel Kent,1 Janwillem WH Kocks,5,11– 13 Maja Kruszyk,5,7 Le Lievre Chantal,5,7 Tessa LiVoti,4,5 Cathy Mahle,14 Barry Make,15 Amanda Ratigan,1 Asif Shaikh,14 Neil Skolnik,16,17 Brooklyn Stanley,4 Barbara P Yawn,17 David B Price4,5,18 1DARTNet Institute, Aurora, CO, USA; 2University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; 3University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 6University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA; 7Optimum Patient Care, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 8University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 9Family Physician Airways Group of Canada, Stouffville, Ontario, Canada; 10University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 11General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 12Groningen Research Institute Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 13Department of Pulmonology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 14Boehringer Ingelheim, Ridgefield, CT, USA; 15Department of Medicine, NJH, Denver, CO, USA; 16Abington Jefferson Health, Jenkintown, PA, USA; 17University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 18Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: Little is known about the variability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management and how it may be affected by patient characteristics across different healthcare systems in the US. This study aims to des

Luis Alves,1 Rachel Pullen,2 John R Hurst,3 Marc Miravitlles,4 Victoria Carter,5 Rongchang Chen,6 Amy Couper,2 Mark Dransfield,7 Alexander Evans,5 Antony Hardjojo,2 David Jones,5 Rupert Jones,8 Margee Kerr,5 Konstantinos Kostikas,9 Jonathan Marshall,10 Fernando Martinez,11 Marije van Melle,5 Ruth Murray,5 Shigeo Muro,12 Clementine Nordon,10 Michael Pollack,13 Chris Price,5 Anita Sharma,14 Dave Singh,15 Tonya Winders,16 David B Price2 1EPIUnit - Epidemiology Research Unit, ITR - Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health, Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal; 2Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 3UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; 4Pneumology Dept, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain; 5Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 6Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease of Shenzhen, Shenzhen Institute of Respiratory Disease, Shenzhen People’s Hospital (Second Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, First Affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology of China), Shenzhen, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; 7Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Lung Health Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; 8Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 9Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece; 10BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 11New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 12Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan; 13BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, USA; 14Platinum Medical Centre, Chermside, QLD, Australia; 15Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory

David B Price,1,2 William Henley,1,3 José Eduardo Delfini Cançado,4 Leonardo M Fabbri,5 Huib AM Kerstjens,6 Alberto Papi,7 Nicolas Roche,8 Elif Åžen,9 Dave Singh,10 Claus F Vogelmeier,11 Sara Barille,12 Elena Nudo,12 Victoria Carter,1 Derek Skinner,1 Rebecca Vella,1 George Georges13 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Health Statistics Group, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK; 4Santa Casa de São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil; 5Respiratory Medicine, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 6Department of Pulmonary Diseases, University of Groningen and University Medical Centre Groningen, and Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), Groningen, Netherlands; 7Respiratory Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 8Department of Respiratory Medicine, APHP-Centre University of Paris, Cochin Institute, Paris, France; 9Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; 10Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 11Department of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Marburg, Member of the German Centre for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 12Global Medical Affairs, Chiesi Farmaceutici, S.p.A., Parma, Italy; 13Global Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici, S.p.A., Parma, ItalyCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) afford therapeutic benefits in some COPD patients, but their widespread use is cautioned due to an increased risk of developing pneumonia.

David Price,1,2 Andrew Menzies-Gow,3 Claus Bachert,4 Giorgio Walter Canonica,5 Janwillem Kocks,1 Asif H Khan,6 Fen Ye,7 Paul J Rowe,7 Yufang Lu,8 Siddhesh Kamat,8 Victoria Carter,1 Jaco Voorham1,9 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI), Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland; 3Royal Brompton Hospital, London, England; 4Upper Airways Research Laboratory, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; 5Personalized Medicine Asthma and Allergy Center, Humanitas University and Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 6Sanofi, Chilly-Mazarin, Paris, France; 7Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 8Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Westchester County, NY, USA; 9Data to Insights Research Solutions, Lisbon, PortugalCorrespondence: David PriceCentre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, ScotlandTel +65 6802 9724Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Although prevalence of co-existing type 2 inflammatory diseases (cT2) in asthma patients has been reported, limited data exist regarding their impact on asthma outcomes.Objective: To assess the impact of cT2 burden on asthma outcomes and to evaluate patterns of clustering of cT2 in a real-world setting.Methods: From medical records of 4.5 million enrollees in 650 primary care practices in the UK (January 2010–December 2017), patients with ≥ 1 diagnosis code for asthma at any time pre-index date (date of most recent asthma-related medical encounter) and ≥ 2 asthma-related prescriptions during the year before index date were categorized into the Global Initiative of Asthma (GINA) guideline severity steps. A cT2 burden score (range 0– 9) was assigned based on the total number of co-existing conditions (allergic conjunctivitis, allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, eczema/atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, food allergy, nasal polyps, or urticaria) for which pati

Trung N Tran,1 Marjan Kerkhof,2 Victoria Carter,3,4 David B Price3– 5 1Global Medicine Development, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 2Mescio Research, Blauwestad, the Netherlands; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Division of Applied Health Sciences, Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: Trung N TranGlobal Medicine Development, AstraZeneca, One MedImmune Way, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USATel +1-301-398-5406Email trung.tran1@astrazeneca.comPurpose: Eosinophil count elevations are predictive of adverse outcomes in patients with asthma, yet little is known regarding longitudinal eosinophil patterns and their association with clinical outcomes. The goal of this study was to assess associations between longitudinal persistence of eosinophil elevations and both clinical outcomes and health care resource utilization (HCRU).Methods: Data were extracted from 2 databases in the United Kingdom. Patients included were aged ≥ 13 years, had active asthma, and had ≥ 3 blood eosinophil count (BEC) recordings. Patients were categorized by BEC as: never high (all BEC ≤ 300 cells/μL), intermittently high (≥ 1 BEC > 300 cells/μL but < 75% of BEC > 300 cells/μL), or persistently high (≥ 75% of BEC > 300 cells/μL). Asthma exacerbations, asthma control (risk domain, overall, and full), and HCRU were evaluated for 12 months after the last BEC.Results: The study population comprised 148,021 patients. Persistently high, intermittently high, and never high eosinophil patterns were detected in 13.6%, 40.5%, and 45.9% of patients, respectively. Patients with ≥ 1 elevated BEC were at greater risk for severe asthma exacerbations, regardless of whether the elevation was persistent (rate ratio [RR]: 1.28 [95% CI 1.24– 1.33]; P < 0.001) or intermittent (RR: 1.24 [95% CI 1.21– 1.27]; P < 0.001), compared with patients with no eosinophil elevations.

Background: Phenotypic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma are not well characterized in global, real-life severe asthma cohorts. Research Question: What is the prevalence of eosinophilic and noneosinophilic phenotypes in the population with severe asthma, and can these phenotypes be differentiated by clinical and biomarker variables? Study Design and Methods: This was an historical registry study. Adult patients with severe asthma and available blood eosinophil count (BEC) from 11 countries enrolled in the International Severe Asthma Registry (January 1, 2015-September 30, 2019) were categorized according to likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using a predefined gradient eosinophilic algorithm based on highest BEC, long-term oral corticosteroid use, elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide, nasal polyps, and adult-onset asthma. Demographic and clinical characteristics were defined at baseline (ie, 1 year before or closest to date of BEC). Results: One thousand seven hundred sixteen patients with prospective data were included; 83.8% were identified as most likely (grade 3), 8.3% were identified as likely (grade 2), and 6.3% identified as least likely (grade 1) to have an eosinophilic phenotype, and 1.6% of patients showed a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Eosinophilic phenotype patients (ie, grades 2 or 3) showed later asthma onset (29.1 years vs 6.7 years; P < .001) and worse lung function (postbronchodilator % predicted FEV1, 76.1% vs 89.3%; P = .027) than those with a noneosinophilic phenotype. Patients with noneosinophilic phenotypes were more likely to be women (81.5% vs 62.9%; P = .047), to have eczema (20.8% vs 8.5%; P = .003), and to use anti-IgE (32.1% vs 13.4%; P = .004) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (50.0% vs 28.0%; P = .011) add-on therapy. Interpretation: According to this multicomponent, consensus-driven, and evidence-based eosinophil gradient algorithm (using variables readily accessi

David Price,1,2 Rupert Jones,3 Pascal Pfister,4 Hui Cao,5 Victoria Carter,6 Anu Kemppinen,6 Björn Holzhauer,4 Alan Kaplan,7 Allan Clark,8 David MG Halpin,9 Hilary Pinnock,10 James D Chalmers,11 Job FM van Boven,12 Kai M Beeh,13 Konstantinos Kostikas,14 Nicolas Roche,15 Omar Usmani,16 Paul Mastoridis5 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon, UK; 4Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 5Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 6Observational and Pragmatic Research International Ltd, Stubbs House Stubbs Green, London, Norwich, UK; 7Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 8Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK; 9University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; 10Allergy and Respiratory Research Group, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; 11College of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK; 12Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 13Clinical Research, Insaf Respiratory Research Institute, Wiesbaden, Germany; 14Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece; 15Cochin Hospital and Institute, APHP Centre, University of Paris, Paris, France; 16National Heart & Lung Institute (NHLI), Imperial College London and Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UKCorrespondence: David PriceCentre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UKTel +44 65 6962 3627Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Poor treatme

Rupert Jones,1– 3 Andrew Davis,1,2 Brooklyn Stanley,1,2 Steven Julious,4 Dermot Ryan,5 David J Jackson,6 David MG Halpin,7 Katherine Hickman,8 Hilary Pinnock,9 Jennifer K Quint,10 Kamlesh Khunti,11 Liam G Heaney,12 Phillip Oliver,4 Salman Siddiqui,13 Ian Pavord,14 David HM Jones,15 Michael Hyland,3,16 Lewis Ritchie,17 Pam Young,18 Tony Megaw,18 Steve Davis,19 Samantha Walker,20 Stephen Holgate,21 Sue Beecroft,22 Anu Kemppinen,1,2 Francis Appiagyei,1,2 Emma-Jane Roberts,1,2 Megan Preston,1,2 Antony Hardjojo,1,2 Victoria Carter,1,2 Marije van Melle,1,2 David Price1,2,17 1Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 2Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 3Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK; 4University of Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK; 5Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; 6Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 7University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; 8Bradford and Leeds Clinical Commissioning Group, Leeds, UK; 9Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; 10National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; 11Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; 12Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 13Institute for Lung Health, Leicester National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; 14Respiratory Medicine Unit and Oxford Respiratory NIHR BRC, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 15Box Surgery, Wiltshire, UK; 16Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 17Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Rachel Pullen, 1, 2 Marc Miravitlles, 3 Anita Sharma, 4 Dave Singh, 5 Fernando Martinez, 6 John R Hurst, 7 Luis Alves, 8, 9 Mark Dransfield, 10 Rongchang Chen, 11 Shigeo Muro, 12 Tonya Winders, 13 Christopher Blango, 14 Hana Muellerova, 15 Frank Trudo, 16 Paul Dorinsky, 17 Marianna Alacqua, 15, 18 Tamsin Morris, 19 Victoria Carter, 1, 2 Amy Couper, 1, 2 Rupert Jones, 20 Konstantinos Kostikas, 1, 21 Ruth Murray, 1 David B Price 1, 2, 22 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 3Pneumology Dept, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain; 4Platinum Medical Centre, Chermside, QLD, Australia; 5Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 6New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 7UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; 8EPI Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 9Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health (ITR), Porto, Portugal; 10Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Lung Health Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; 11Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease of Shenzhen, Shenzhen Institute of Respiratory Disease, Shenzhen People’s Hospital (Second Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, First Affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology of China), Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China; 12Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan; 13USA & Global Allergy & Airways Patient Platform, Vienna, Austria; 14Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 15Astra

Purpose: There is a dearth of research regarding the prevalence and nature of patient-reported rhinitis and its relationship with risk of asthma exacerbations. The aim of this study was to (i) determine the prevalence, severity and treatment of self-reported rhinitis symptoms among adults aged >= 18 years with asthma treated at Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 3 and above and (ii) compare the demographics, clinical characteristics, medication use, side-effects and healthcare practitioner review between patients who report rhinitis symptoms and those who do not and (iii) determine whether patient-reported rhinitis is associated with risk of asthma exacerbations in the total patient sample. Patients and Methods: This analysis used data from the iHARP (Initiative Helping Asthma in Real-life Patients) asthma review service - a cross-sectional observational study (2011 and 2014) in seven countries that captured data on patient demographics, rhinitis symptoms, asthma symptoms, indicators of exacerbations, medication use, oropharyngeal effects and side-effects, using practitioner- and patient-reported questionnaires. Comparisons between patients with and without rhinitis were tested. Univariate logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with risk of exacerbations for entry into multivariable logistic regression. Results: This report contains data from 4274 patients: 67.4% (2881/4274) reported rhinitis symptoms and of which 65.7% (1894/2881) had not received a doctor diagnosis; 36.5% (1052/2881) had moderate-severe rhinitis, 12.4% (358/2881) had used intranasal corticosteroids and 19.8% (569/2881) oral antihistamines. Patients with coexisting moderate-severe rhinitis were more likely to have GINA-defined uncontrolled asthma than those with mild rhinitis or no rhinitis. Moderate-severe rhinitis was associated with 40% increased risk of asthma exacerbations (OR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.02-1.90). Conclusion: This study identified a major gap in the diagnos

Vicky Kritikos,1,2 David Price,3– 5 Alberto Papi,6 Antonio Infantino,7 Björn Ställberg,8 Dermot Ryan,3,9 Federico Lavorini,10 Henry Chrystyn,11 John Haughney,12 Karin Lisspers,8 Kevin Gruffydd-Jones,13 Miguel Román Rodríguez,14 Svein Høegh Henrichsen,15 Thys van der Molen,16 Victoria Carter,3,4 Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich1,17,18 1Quality Use of Respiratory Medicines Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 3Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 4Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 5Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 6Respiratory Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 7Special Interest Respiratory Area, Italian Interdisciplinary Society for Primary Care, Bari, Italy; 8Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 9Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; 10Department Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 11Inhalation Consultancy Ltd, Leeds, UK; 12NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde R&D, Glasgow, UK; 13Box Surgery, Box, UK; 14Primary Care Respiratory Research Unit Instituto De Investigación Sanitaria De Baleares (IdISBa), Palma, Spain; 15Department of Primary Health Care Services, Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo, Norway; 16Department of Primary Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 17Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 18Central Sydney Local Area Health District, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaCorrespondence: Vicky KritikosWoolcock Institute of Medical Research, Glebe, Syd

Regional and/or national severe asthma registries provide valuable country-specific information. However, they are often limited in scope within the broader definitions of severe asthma, have insufficient statistical power to answer many research questions, lack intraoperability to share lessons learned, and have fundamental differences in data collected, making cross comparisons difficult. What is missing is a worldwide registry which brings all severe asthma data together in a cohesive way, under a single umbrella, based on standardized data collection protocols, permitting data to be shared seamlessly. The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) is the first global adult severe asthma registry. It is a joint initiative where national registries (both newly created and preexisting) retain ownership of their own data but open their borders and share data with ISAR for ethically approved research purposes. Its strength comes from collection of patient-level, anonymous, longitudinal, real-life, standardized, high-quality data (using a core set of variables) from countries across the world, combined with organizational structure, database experience, inclusivity/openness, and clinical, academic, and database expertise. This gives ISAR sufficient statistical power to answer important research questions, sufficient data standardization to compare across countries and regions, and the structure and expertise necessary to ensure its continuance and the scientific integrity and clinical applicability of its research. ISAR offers a unique opportunity to implement existing knowledge, generate new knowledge, and identify the unknown, therefore promoting new research. The aim of this commentary is to fully describe how ISAR may improve our understanding of severe asthma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The concept of clinical control in COPD has been developed to help in treatment decisions, but it requires validation in prospective studies.METHODS: This international, multicentre, prospective study aimed to validate the concept of control in COPD. Patients with COPD were classified as controlled/uncontrolled by clinical criteria or CAT scores at baseline and followed up for 18 months. The main outcome was the difference in rate of a composite endpoint of moderate and severe exacerbations or death over the 18-month follow-up period.RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were analysed (mean age = 68.6 years and mean FEV1 % = 52.5%). Up to 65% and 37.9% of patients were classified as controlled by clinical criteria or CAT, respectively. Controlled patients had significantly less exacerbations during follow-up (by clinical criteria: 1.1 vs 2.6, P < 0.001; by CAT: 1.1 vs 1.9, P = 0.014). Time to first exacerbation was significantly prolonged for patients controlled by clinical criteria only (median: 93 days, IQR: 63; 242 vs 274 days, IQR: 221; 497 days; P < 0.001). Control status by clinical criteria was a better predictor of exacerbations compared to CAT criteria (AUC: 0.67 vs 0.57).CONCLUSION: Control status, defined by easy-to-obtain clinical criteria, is predictive of future exacerbation risk and time to the next exacerbation. The concept of control can be used in clinical practice at each clinical visit as a complement to the current recommendations of initial treatment proposed by guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma exerts a disproportionately heavy burden on patients and health care. Due to the heterogeneity of the severe asthma population, many patients need to be evaluated to understand the clinical features and outcomes of severe asthma in order to facilitate personalised and targeted care. The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) is a multi-country registry project initiated to aid in this endeavour.METHODS: ISAR is a multi-disciplinary initiative benefitting from the combined experience of the ISAR Steering Committee (ISC; comprising 47 clinicians and researchers across 29 countries, who have a special interest and/or experience in severe asthma management or establishment and maintenance of severe asthma registries) in collaboration with scientists and experts in database management and communication. Patients (≥18 years old) receiving treatment according to the 2018 definitions of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 5 or uncontrolled on GINA Step 4 treatment will be included. Data will be collected on a core set of 95 variables identified using the Delphi method. Participating registries will agree to provide access to and share standardised anonymous patient-level data with ISAR. ISAR is a registered data source on the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. ISAR's collaborators include Optimum Patient Care, the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and AstraZeneca. ISAR is overseen by the ISC, REG, the Anonymised Data Ethics & Protocol Transparency Committee and the ISAR operational committee, ensuring the conduct of ethical, clinically relevant research that brings value to all key stakeholders.CONCLUSIONS: ISAR aims to offer a rich source of real-life data for scientific research to understand and improve disease burden, treatment patterns and patient outcomes in severe asthma. Furthermore, the registry will provide an international platform for research collaboration

Simon Wan Yau Ming,1 John Haughney,2 Dermot Ryan,3 Iain Small,4 Federico Lavorini,5 Alberto Papi,6 Dave Singh,7 David MG Halpin,8 John R Hurst,9 Shishir Patel,10 Matthias Ochel,10 Janwillem Kocks,1,11,12 Victoria Carter,1 Antony Hardjojo,1 David B Price1,2 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 4Peterhead Health Centre, Aberdeen, UK; 5Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy; 6University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 7University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 8Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK; 9UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; 10Chiesi Limited, Manchester, UK; 11General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 12University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, GRIAC Research Institute, Groningen, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: David B PriceCentre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UKTel +65 6802 9724Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: The Fostair® 100/6 (BDP/FF) pressurized metered-dose inhaler, delivering an extrafine formulation, is licensed for asthma and COPD in the UK. However, its real-life effectiveness for COPD has not been evaluated. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of BDP/FF against other licensed ICS/LABA combination inhalers: the Seretide® Accuhaler® (FP/SAL) and the Symbicort® Turbohaler® (BUD/FF).Methods: A matched historical cohort study was conducted using records of patients with diagnostic codes for COPD from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD). Patients who had received BDP/FF as their first ICS/LABA were matched 1:1 with patients who had rece

Marjan Kerkhof,1 Jaco Voorham,1 Paul Dorinsky,2 Claudia Cabrera,3,4 Patrick Darken,5 Janwillem WH Kocks,1,6 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,7,8 Don D Sin,7,8 Victoria Carter,1 David B Price1,9 1Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore, Singapore; 2AstraZeneca, Durham, NC, USA; 3AstraZeneca, Mölndal, Sweden; 4Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 5AstraZeneca, Morristown, NJ, USA; 6General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, The Netherlands; 7Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 8Centre for Heart Lung Innovation, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 9Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UKTel +65 6962 3627Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: Early identification of preventable risk factors of COPD progression is important. Whether exacerbations have a negative impact on disease progression is largely unknown. We investigated whether the long-term occurrence of exacerbations is associated with lung function decline at early stages of COPD.Methods: Patients diagnosed with mild/moderate COPD (obstruction and FEV1% predicted 50– 90%), aged ≥ 35 years, and a smoking history, who had ≥ 6 years of UK electronic medical records after initiation of maintenance therapy were studied. Multilevel mixed-effect linear regression was performed to determine the association between the count of any year in which the patient had ≥ 1 exacerbation over a 6-year period and FEV1 decline, adjusted for sex, age, anthropometrics and smoking habits. Exacerbations were defined as any prescription for an acute oral corticosteroid course and/or lower respiratory-related antibiotics and/or any COPD-related emergency or inpatient hospitalization.Result

Factors related to the discrepancy between patient-perceived and actual disease control remain unclear. Identifying patients at risk of overestimation of asthma control remains elusive. This study aimed to (i) investigate the relationship between patient-reported and actual level of asthma control (ii), compare the characteristics between patients who believe their asthma is well controlled that accurately report 'well-controlled' asthma with those that do not, and (iii) identify factors associated with inaccurately reported 'well-controlled' asthma. A historical, multinational, cross-sectional study using data from the iHARP (initiative Helping Asthma in Real-life Patients) review service for adults with asthma prescribed fixed-dose combination therapy. Data from 4274 patients were analysed. A major discrepancy between patient-reported and Global Initiative for Asthma defined asthma control was detected; 71.1% of patients who reported 'well-controlled' asthma were inaccurate in their perception despite receiving regular maintenance therapy. Significant differences were noted in age, gender, body mass index, education level, medication use, side effects, attitudes to preventer inhaler use, inhaler technique review and respiratory specialist review between patients who accurately reported 'wellcontrolled' asthma and those who did not. Independent risk factors associated with inaccurately reported 'well-controlled' asthma were: having taken a maximum of 5-12 puffs or more of reliever inhaler on at least one day within the previous 4 weeks; being female; having seen a respiratory specialist more than a year ago (rather than in the previous year); and having required oral corticosteroids for worsening asthma in the previous year. The study highlighted the significant hidden burden associated with under-recognition of poor asthma control, on the part of the patient and the need for targeted interventions designed to address the continuing discrepancy between perceived an

We aimed to compare clinical characteristics between Asian and Western chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This was a sub-analysis of an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study. Asian patients were enrolled in Singapore and South Korea. Western patients were enrolled in Spain, Poland, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Malta. A total of 349 patients were analyzed. Among them, 110 (32%) patients were Asian and 239 (68%) Western. Male sex was more predominant in Asian than in Western (95% versus 63%, respectively; P<0.01). Body mass index was significantly lower in Asian (23.5 versus 27.1; P<0.01). The proportion of patients with a history of exacerbation was lower in Asian (12% versus 64%; P<0.01). Although patients were enrolled by same inclusion criteria, there were several differences between Asian and Western COPD patients. Our study has shown unbiased real-world differences between Asian and Western COPD patients. Since prospective follow-up study is currently ongoing, the result of this study can be fundamental base of future analysis.

BACKGROUND: The lack of centralized data on severe asthma has resulted in a scarcity of information about the disease and its management. The development of a common data collection tool for the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) will enable standardized data collection, subsequently enabling data interoperability.OBJECTIVES: To create a standardized list of variables for the first international registry for severe asthma via expert consensus.METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on a minimum set of variables to capture in ISAR: the core variables. The Delphi panel brought together 27 international experts in the field of severe asthma research. The process consisted of 3 iterative rounds. In each round, all Delphi panel members were issued an electronic ISAR Delphi workbook to complete and return to the ISAR Delphi administrator. Workbooks and result summaries were anonymously distributed by the Delphi administrator to all panel members at subsequent rounds. Finalization of the core variable list was facilitated by 2 face-to-face meetings.RESULTS: Of the initial 747 selected variables, the Delphi panel reached a consensus on 95. The chosen variables will allow severe asthma to be assessed against patient demographics and medical history, patient-reported outcomes, diagnostic information, and clinical characteristics. Physician-reported outcomes such as nonadherence and information about treatment and management strategies will also be recorded.CONCLUSIONS: This is the first global attempt to generate an ISAR using a common set of core variables to ensure that data collected across all participating countries are standardized.

Kyu Yean Kim,1 Marc Miravitlles,2,3 Pawel Sliwinski,4 Richard Costello,5 Victoria Carter,6,7 Jessica Tan,8 Therese Sophie Lapperre,8,9 Bernardino Alcazar,10 Caroline Gouder,11 Cristina Esquinas,2,12 Juan Luis García-Rivero,13 Anu Kemppinen,6 Augustine Tee,14 Miguel Roman-Rodríguez,15 Juan José Soler-Cataluña,3,16 David Price,6–7,17 Chin Kook Rhee11Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 2Pneumology Department, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron/Vall d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain; 3CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain; 42nd Department of Respiratory Medicine, Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Warsaw, Poland; 5Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland; 6Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 7Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 8Department of Respiratory Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 9Singhealth Duke-NUS Medical Academic Clinical Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore; 10Respiratory Department, Hospital de Alta Resolución de Loja, Madrid, Spain; 11Department of Respiratory Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital, L-Imsida, Malta; 12Public Health, Mental, Maternal and Child Health Nursing Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 13Hospital Comarcal de Laredo, Cantabria, Spain; 14Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Changi General Hospital, Singapore; 15Primary Health-care Center Son Pisà, IB-Salut, Palma, Spain; 16Pneumology Department, Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Valencia, Spain; 17Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, SingaporeAbstract: We aimed to compare

David B Price,1,2 Sen Yang,1 Simon Wan Yau Ming,1 Antony Hardjojo,1 Claudia Cabrera,3,4 Andriana I Papaioannou,5 Stelios Loukides,5 Vicky Kritikos,6 Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,6 Victoria Carter,7 Paul M Dorinsky8 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca R and D, Mölndal, Sweden; 4Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 52nd Respiratory Medicine Department, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece; 6Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Quality Use of Respiratory Medicines Group, School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Glebe, Australia; 7Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 8Pearl – a member of the AstraZeneca Group, Durham, NC, USABackground: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) as generated through the resistance of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) device is a critical patient-dependent maneuver impacting the success of DPI medication delivery. Despite its importance, it is not routinely measured in clinical practice. Little is currently known about the relationship, if any, between PIF through DPI devices, routine spirometry and disease outcomes.Aim: The aim of this study was to identify potential predictors of PIF for different DPIs from spirometric parameters and patient characteristics and explore the association between PIF and follow-up events.Patients and methods: A retrospective observational study at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation at Attikon hospital, Athens, Greece. Spirometry was performed using an Easy on-PC™ spirometer. PIF was measured through four DPI resistances using the In-Check™ DIAL. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between PIF through resistances and spirometri

David B Price,1–3 Pete K Smith,4 Richard John Harvey,5,6 A Simon Carney,7 Vicky Kritikos,8 Sinthia Z Bosnic‑Anticevich,8,9 Louise Christian,10 Derek Skinner,3 Victoria Carter,2,3 Alice MS Durieux2 1Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 2Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 3Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 4Clinical Medicine, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia; 5Rhinology and Skull Base, Applied Medical Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 6Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 7Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia; 8Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia; 9Central Sydney Area Health Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 10NostraData, Kew, VIC, Australia Background: The aim of the study was to explore rhinitis therapy purchases in different Australian regions for patients with and without additional respiratory disease, using both doctor’s prescriptions and over-the-counter (OTC) medications. Patients and methods: It was a historical cohort study of pharmacy-related claims that included prescription or OTC rhinitis therapy, with or without asthma/COPD therapy, from January 2013 to December 2014. Results: Overall, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over a calendar year; the majority were single-therapy purchases for rhinitis only patients. More multiple-therapy was purchased for rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients (4.4%) than for rhinitis only patients (4.0%), with a greater proportion purchased in VIC, SA and TAS (4.7% of rhinitis only patients and 4.5% of rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients) than in other areas. Dual therapy of oral antihistamine (OAH) and intranasal corticosteroid (INS) were the most frequently purchased multiple

BACKGROUND: Poor inhaler technique has been linked to poor asthma outcomes. Training can reduce the number of inhaler errors, but it is unknown which errors have the greatest impact on asthma outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The CRITical Inhaler mistaKes and Asthma controL study investigated the association between specific inhaler errors and asthma outcomes. METHODS: This analysis used data from the iHARP asthma review service-a multicenter cross-sectional study of adults with asthma. The review took place between 2011 and 2014 and captured data from more than 5000 patients on demographic characteristics, asthma symptoms, and inhaler errors observed by purposefully trained health care professionals. People with asthma receiving a fixed-dose combination treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta agonist were categorized by the controller inhaler device they used-dry-powder inhalers or metered-dose inhalers: inhaler errors were analyzed within device cohorts. Error frequency, asthma symptom control, and exacerbation rate were analyzed to identify critical errors. RESULTS: This report contains data from 3660 patients. Insufficient inspiratory effort was common (made by 32%-38% of dry-powder inhaler users) and was associated with uncontrolled asthma (adjusted odds ratios [95% CI], 1.30 [1.08-1.57] and 1.56 [1.17-2.07] in those using Turbohaler and Diskus devices, respectively) and increased exacerbation rate. In metered-dose inhaler users, actuation before inhalation (24.9% of patients) was associated with uncontrolled asthma (1.55 [1.11-2.16]). Several more generic and device-specific errors were also identified as critical. CONCLUSIONS: Specific inhaler errors have been identified as critical errors, evidenced by frequency and association with asthma outcomes. Asthma management should target inhaler training to reduce key critical errors.

The host innate immune response to influenza virus is a key determinant of pathogenic outcomes and long-term protective immune responses against subsequent exposures. Here, we present a direct contrast of the host responses in primary differentiated human nasal epithelial cell (hNEC) cultures following infection with either a seasonal H3N2 influenza virus (WT) or the antigenically-matched live-attenuated vaccine (LAIV) strain. Comparison of the transcriptional profiles obtained 24 and 36h post-infection showed that the magnitude of gene expression was greater in LAIV infected relative to that observed in WT infected hNEC cultures. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that the antiviral and inflammatory responses were largely driven by type III IFN induction in both WT and LAIV infected cells. However, the enrichment of biological pathways involved in the recruitment of mononuclear leukocytes, antigen-presenting cells, and T lymphocytes was uniquely observed in LAIV infected cells. These observations were reflective of the host innate immune responses observed in individuals acutely infected with influenza viruses. These findings indicate that cell-intrinsic type III IFN-mediated innate immune responses in the nasal epithelium are not only crucial for viral clearance and attenuation, but may also play an important role in the induction of protective immune responses with live-attenuated vaccines.

Pete Smith,1 David Price,2,3 Richard Harvey,4,5 Andrew Simon Carney,6 Vicky Kritikos,7 Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,7,8 Louise Christian,9 Derek Skinner,10 Victoria Carter,10 Alice Marie Sybille Durieux3 1Clinical Medicine, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia; 2Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 3Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 4Applied Medical Research Center, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 5Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 6Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia; 7Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 8Central Sydney Area Health Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 9NostraData, Kew, VIC, Australia; 10Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK Purpose: There is a relative paucity of research regarding medication expenditure associated with multiple-therapy use for rhinitis in Australia. To describe 1) the nature and extent of multiple-therapy use for rhinitis in Australia using data on therapies purchased with prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) and 2) additional costs incurred by multiple-therapy use compared with intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy alone. Patients and methods: A retrospective observational study was carried out using a database containing anonymous pharmacy transaction data available from 20% of pharmacies in Australia that links doctor prescriptions and OTC purchase information. Pharmacy purchases of at least one prescription or OTC rhinitis treatment, with or without additional asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy, by patients during 2013 and 2014 were assessed. Results: In total, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over 24 months. The majority of rhinitis therapy transactions were single-therapy purchases witho

The Natural History Museum, London (NHMUK) has embarked on an ambitious programme to digitise its collections. The first phase of this programme was to undertake a series of pilot projects to develop the workflows and infrastructure needed to support mass digitisation of very large scientific collections. This paper presents the results of one of the pilot projects – iCollections. This project digitised all the lepidopteran specimens usually considered as butterflies, 181,545 specimens representing 89 species from the British Isles and Ireland. The data digitised includes, species name, georeferenced location, collector and collection date - the what, where, who and when of specimen data. In addition, a digital image of each specimen was taken. A previous paper explained the way the data were obtained and the background to the collections that made up the project. The present paper describes the technical, logistical, and economic aspects of managing the project.

A Simon Carney,1 David B Price,2,3 Pete K Smith,4 Richard Harvey,5,6 Vicky Kritikos,7 Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,7,8 Louise Christian,9 Derek A Skinner,10 Victoria Carter,10 Alice MS Durieux3 1Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 4Clinical Medicine, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 5Applied Medical Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 6Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, 7Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, 8Central Sydney Area Health Service, Sydney, NSW, 9NostraData, Kew, VIC, Australia; 10Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK Purpose: To explore patterns in the purchase of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) oral antihistamines (OAHs) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) by patients, from pharmacies in different geographical regions of Australia.Patients and methods: Retrospective observational study using a database containing anonymous pharmacy transaction data from 20.0% of the pharmacies in Australia that link doctor prescriptions and OTC information. Pharmacy purchases of at least one prescription or OTC rhinitis treatment during 2013 and 2014 were assessed.Results: In total, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over 12 months. Of treatments purchased, 75.9% were OAHs and 16.6% were INCSs. OTC purchases of both treatments exceeded purchases through prescription. OTC OAHs purchasing patterns were seasonal and almost identical in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and New South Wales, and similar seasonal patterns for OTC INCSs were noted in most regions except for South Australia and Tasmania. Prescription purchasing patterns of both OAHs and INCSs remained unchanged throughout the year in most

Objective: Correct inhaler technique is central to effective delivery of asthma therapy. The study aim was to identify factors associated with serious inhaler technique errors and their prevalence among primary care patients with asthma using the Diskus dry powder inhaler (DPI). Methods: This was a historical, multinational, cross-sectional study (2011-2013) using the iHARP database, an international initiative that includes patient- and healthcare provider-reported questionnaires from eight countries. Patients with asthma were observed for serious inhaler errors by trained healthcare providers as predefined by the iHARP steering committee. Multivariable logistic regression, stepwise reduced, was used to identify clinical characteristics and asthma-related outcomes associated with 1 serious errors. Results: Of 3681 patients with asthma, 623 (17%) were using a Diskus (mean [SD] age, 51 [14]; 61% women). A total of 341 (55%) patients made 1 serious errors. The most common errors were the failure to exhale before inhalation, insufficient breath-hold at the end of inhalation, and inhalation that was not forceful from the start. Factors significantly associated with 1 serious errors included asthma-related hospitalization the previous year (odds ratio [OR] 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-3.40); obesity (OR 1.75; 1.17-2.63); poor asthma control the previous 4 weeks (OR 1.57; 1.04-2.36); female sex (OR 1.51; 1.08-2.10); and no inhaler technique review during the previous year (OR 1.45; 1.04-2.02). Conclusions: Patients with evidence of poor asthma control should be targeted for a review of their inhaler technique even when using a device thought to have a low error rate.

Meeting Abstract: P4.02

Pathology resulting from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is driven by protracted inflammation; the primary loss of CD4(+) T cells is caused by activation-driven apoptosis. Recent studies of nonhuman primates (NHPs) have suggested that during the acute phase of infection, antiviral mucosal immunity restricts viral replication in the primary infection compartment. These studies imply that HIV achieves systemic infection as a consequence of a failure in host antiviral immunity. Here, we used high-dose intrarectal inoculation of rhesus macaques with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) SIVmac251 to examine how the mucosal immune system is overcome by SIV during acute infection. The host response in rectal mucosa was characterized by deep mRNA sequencing (mRNA-seq) at 3 and 12 days postinoculation (dpi) in 4 animals for each time point. While we observed a strong host transcriptional response at 3 dpi, functions relating to antiviral immunity were absent. Instead, we observed a significant number of differentially expressed genes relating to cell adhesion and reorganization of the cytoskeleton. We also observed downregulation of genes encoding members of the claudin family of cell adhesion molecules, which are coexpressed with genes associated with pathology in the colorectal mucosa, and a large number of noncoding transcripts. In contrast, at 12 dpi the differentially expressed genes were enriched in those involved with immune system functions, in particular, functions relating to T cells, B cells, and NK cells. Our findings indicate that host responses that negatively affect mucosal integrity occur before inflammation. Consequently, when inflammation is activated at peak viremia, mucosal integrity is already compromised, potentially enabling rapid tissue damage, driving further inflammation. IMPORTANCE The HIV pandemic is one of the major threats to human health, causing over a million deaths per year. Recent studies have suggested that mucosal antiviral im

The sand fly Phlebotomus argentipes is arguably the most important vector of leishmaniasis worldwide. As there is no vaccine against the parasites that cause leishmaniasis, disease prevention focuses on control of the insect vector. Understanding reproductive behaviour will be essential to controlling populations of P. argentipes, and developing new strategies for reducing leishmaniasis transmission. Through statistical analysis of male-female interactions, this study provides a detailed description of P. argentipes courtship, and behaviours critical to mating success are highlighted. The potential for a role of cuticular hydrocarbons in P. argentipes courtship is also investigated, by comparing chemicals extracted from the surface of male and female flies. P. argentipes courtship shared many similarities with that of both Phlebotomus papatasi and the New World leishmaniasis vector Lutzomyia longipalpis. Male wing-flapping while approaching the female during courtship predicted mating success, and touching between males and females was a common and frequent occurrence. Both sexes were able to reject a potential partner. Significant differences were found in the profile of chemicals extracted from the surface of males and females. Results of GC analysis indicate that female extracts contained a number of peaks with relatively short retention times not present in males. Extracts from males had higher peaks for chemicals with relatively long retention times. The importance of male approach flapping suggests that production of audio signals through wing beating, or dispersal of sex pheromones, are important to mating in this species. Frequent touching as a means of communication, and the differences in the chemical profiles extracted from males and females, may also indicate a role for cuticular hydrocarbons in P. argentipes courtship. Comparing characteristics of successful and unsuccessful mates could aid in identifying the modality of signals involved in P. argentipe

A new generation of strategies is evolving that aim to block malaria transmission by employing genetically modified vectors or mosquito pathogens or symbionts that express anti-parasite molecules. Whilst transgenic technologies have advanced rapidly, there is still a paucity of effector molecules with potent anti-malaria activity whose expression does not cause detrimental effects on mosquito fitness. Our objective was to examine a wide range of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) for their toxic effects on Plasmodium and anopheline mosquitoes. Specifically targeting early sporogonic stages, we initially screened AMPs for toxicity against a mosquito cell line and P. berghei ookinetes. Promising candidate AMPs were fed to mosquitoes to monitor adverse fitness effects, and their efficacy in blocking rodent malaria infection in Anopheles stephensi was assessed. This was followed by tests to determine their activity against P. falciparum in An. gambiae, initially using laboratory cultures to infect mosquitoes, then culminating in preliminary assays in the field using gametocytes and mosquitoes collected from the same area in Mali, West Africa. From a range of 33 molecules, six AMPs able to block Plasmodium development were identified: Anoplin, Duramycin, Mastoparan X, Melittin, TP10 and Vida3. With the exception of Anoplin and Mastoparan X, these AMPs were also toxic to an An. gambiae cell line at a concentration of 25 µM. However, when tested in mosquito blood feeds, they did not reduce mosquito longevity or egg production at concentrations of 50 µM. Peptides effective against cultured ookinetes were less effective when tested in vivo and differences in efficacy against P. berghei and P. falciparum were seen. From the range of molecules tested, the majority of effective AMPs were derived from bee/wasp venoms., AuthorCount: 17

Diseases transmitted by mosquitoes have a devastating impact on global health and this is worsening due to difficulties with existing control measures and climate change. Genetically modified mosquitoes that are refractory to disease transmission are seen as having great potential in the delivery of novel control strategies. Historically the genetic modification of insects has relied upon transposable elements which have many limitations despite their successful use. To circumvent these limitations the Streptomyces phage phiC31 integrase system has been successfully adapted for site-specific transgene integration in insects. Here, we present the first site-specific transformation of Anopheles gambiae, the principal vector of human malaria. Mosquitoes were initially engineered to incorporate the phiC31 targeting site at a defined genomic location. A second phase of genetic modification then achieved site-specific integration of Vida3, a synthetic anti-malarial gene. Expression of Vida3, specifically in the midgut of bloodfed females, offered consistent and significant protection against Plasmodium yoelii nigeriensis, reducing average parasite intensity by 85%. Similar protection was observed against Plasmodium falciparum in some experiments, although protection was inconsistent. In the fight against malaria, it is imperative to establish a broad repertoire of both anti-malarial effector genes and tissue-specific promoters for their expression, enabling those offering maximum effect with minimum fitness cost to be identified. In the future, this technology will allow effective comparisons and informed choices to be made, potentially leading to complete transmission blockade.

Diseases transmitted by mosquitoes have a devastating impact on global health and this is worsening due to difficulties with existing control measures and climate change. Genetically modified mosquitoes that are refractory to disease transmission are seen as having great potential in the delivery of novel control strategies. Historically the genetic modification of insects has relied upon transposable elements which have many limitations despite their successful use. To circumvent these limitations the Streptomyces phage phiC31 integrase system has been successfully adapted for site-specific transgene integration in insects. Here, we present the first site-specific transformation of Anopheles gambiae, the principal vector of human malaria. Mosquitoes were initially engineered to incorporate the phiC31 targeting site at a defined genomic location. A second phase of genetic modification then achieved site-specific integration of Vida3, a synthetic anti-malarial gene. Expression of Vida3, specifically in the midgut of bloodfed females, offered consistent and significant protection against Plasmodium yoelii nigeriensis, reducing average parasite intensity by 85%. Similar protection was observed against Plasmodium falciparum in some experiments, although protection was inconsistent. In the fight against malaria, it is imperative to establish a broad repertoire of both anti-malarial effector genes and tissue-specific promoters for their expression, enabling those offering maximum effect with minimum fitness cost to be identified. In the future, this technology will allow effective comparisons and informed choices to be made, potentially leading to complete transmission blockade.

1, Empathy and social masking are traits related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Social masking, the act of camouflaging socially to appear closer to the social norm, is often utilized to conceal autistic traits, such that individuals with ASD mask more frequently than neurotypical individuals (Hull et al., 2017). However, neurotypical adults also use masking and camouflaging behaviors in routine social interactions, including actively attempting to mirror others’ moods, reflecting vocabulary and syntax, or matching facial expressions to respond appropriately (Pryke-Hobbes et al. 2023). Additionally, empathy is related to ASD traits; although, the findings are often mixed. Originally, it was thought that people with autism lacked the level of empathy seen in neurotypical populations (Charman et al., 1997). However, this conclusion resulted from poor definitions of empathy and unreliable testing (Fletcher-Watson & Bird, 2020). The increased interest and research on empathy and masking have led to new assessments, such as the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) and the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q). The current study compares the demographic characteristics (i.e., age and gender) of a subclinical college student sample on the TEQ and the CAT-Q. Social masking plateaus in early adulthood; however, scores diverge in later adulthood for those with autism symptoms, showing that those with autism traits mask at higher rates (Remnélius & Bölte, 2023). Additionally, the TEQ has shown that older adults have significantly higher empathy scores than younger adults (Gould & Gautreau, 2014). Research on gender suggest no significant differences in CAT-Q total or subscale scores between non-autistic males and females (Hull et al., 2019a). However, in autistic populations, females score significantly higher than males in both the total and subscale scores.