Search

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of severe asthma (SA) treatments after 12 months in achieving clinical remission (CR) within the context of the Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI) using the recent SANI definition of CR on treatment. Methods: CR has been defined by SANI as complete, partial, and no CR. Complete CR is defined by the absence of oral corticosteroids (OCS), no symptoms, no exacerbations, and stable lung function, and partial CR requires the absence of OCS and the fulfillment of 2 out of the other 3 criteria. Patients who do not meet the previous criteria do not reach CR. Results: After 12 months of treatment, 283 patients were selected to evaluate the effectiveness of biologics (225 patients) and inhaled therapy (58 patients) in achieving CR. Among patients treated with biologic agents, 45.8% reached complete CR, 23.1% partial CR, and 31.1% no CR. Differences in CR achievement according to type of biologic agent administered were observed. Interesting results were found when assessing the inhaled therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA and no biologics) effectiveness: 34.5% patients reached complete CR, 34.5% partial CR, and 31.0% did not reach CR. This finding is noteworthy since it further supports the efficacy of inhaled treatment in certain SA patients and highlights the relevance of using CR as a modern outcome of SA treatments. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) comorbidity was associated, though not significantly, with CR achievement in patients treated with biologics. Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores significantly impacted CR (p = 0.003 and p = 0.027, respectively), while biomarkers, namely IgE, blood eosinophils, or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), were not associated with CR achievement. Conclusions: This study confirmed the effectiveness of biologics in reaching CR and demonstrated also inhaled therapies able to achieve CR. These innovative findings should encourage post hoc analysis of randomized clinical trials or even retrospective analysis of SA patient cohorts to evaluate CR with different inhaled treatments and further define the populations eligible for each treatment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06625216; Central Ethics Committee: Comitato Etico Area Vasta Nord-Ovest Toscana (study number 1245/2016, protocol number:73714).

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

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

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

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

Background: Adherence to medications is crucial in patients with severe asthma in light of the negative clinical impact and costs of non-adherence. Adherence to omalizumab has not been well studied in real-world settings. The aim of this study was to assess adherence to omalizumab and evaluate treatment effectiveness in relation to adherence. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational, and multicenter real-world study. Omalizumab dose, timing of administration, and duration of treatment ( 4 years) were analyzed. Adherence was evaluated by examining rates of expected and missing doses. Good adherence (10% doses missed) were determined. For effectiveness in relation to adherence of omalizumab we considered asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, asthma control test (ACT), and Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV1). Results: A total of 196 patients were evaluated, and 161 were suitable for data analyses. Good adherence was shown in 90.7% of patients and poor adherence in 9.3%. Considering adherence in relation to treatment duration: 4 years, 100% were adherent (expected doses, 6120; missed doses, none). Indices of efficacy between pre- and post-treatment showed significant improvement (p