Search

Background: People with severe asthma remain at risk of toxicity from maintenance oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and/or frequent OCS burst therapy. Cumulative exposures above 500–1000 mg prednisolone are associated with adverse effects, and recently OCS stewardship principles were promulgated to guide OCS prescription. Aims: To examine real‐world registry data to quantify OCS burden, ascertain trends over time in prescription and assess whether opportunities to implement steroid‐sparing strategies were utilised. Methods: Participants were enrolled in the Australasian Severe Asthma Registry for the period 2013–2021. Assessments were taken at enrolment and then annual follow‐up, which included asthma control and OCS use. Descriptive analyses were performed, and subgroups were compared at baseline and over time. Results: Nine hundred and twenty‐four participants were evaluated and 215/924 (23%) were taking maintenance OCS at baseline, with 44% and 32% of participants having exposure to ≥500 or 1000 mg of OCS respectively in the prior year. Twelve months later, an additional 10% and 9% of participants reached cumulative doses of 500 or 1000 mg. People exceeding thresholds had ongoing poor asthma control. At baseline, 240/924 (26%) people were treated with asthma biological therapy. An additional 83 (12%) participants were identified as potentially benefiting from this steroid‐sparing medication. Of these patients, only 23% commenced a biologic agent in the next 12 months. Conclusions: A large national asthma registry identifies exposure to toxic cumulative doses of OCS in more than a third of participants, with further subsequent cumulative dose escalation over 2 years. Steroid‐sparing strategies were often not employed, highlighting the need for implementation of OCS stewardship initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the level of dispensing of oral corticosteroids (OCS) for managing asthma in Australia, with a particular focus on the cumulative dispensing of doses associated with long term toxicity (≥ 1000 mg prednisolone‐equivalent). Design: Retrospective cohort study; analysis of 10% random sample of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) dispensing data. Participants, setting: People aged 12 years or more treated for asthma during 2014–2018, according to dispensing of controller inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Main outcome measures: Number of people dispensed OCS for managing asthma during 2014–2018; proportion who were cumulatively dispensed at least 1000 mg prednisolone‐equivalent. The secondary outcome was the number of people dispensed at least 1000 mg prednisolone‐equivalent during 2018, stratified by inhaler controller dose and use. Results: 124 011 people had been dispensed at least two prescriptions of ICS during 2014–2018 and met the study definition for asthma, of whom 64 112 (51.7%) had also been dispensed OCS, including 34 580 (27.9% of the asthma group) cumulatively dispensed 1000 mg prednisolone‐equivalent or more. Of 138 073 people dispensed OCS at this level, 68 077 (49%) were patients with airway diseases. Dispensing of diabetes and osteoporosis medications was more common for people cumulatively dispensed 1000 mg prednisolone‐equivalent or more. During 2018, 4633 people with asthma using high dose ICS controllers were dispensed 1000 mg prednisolone‐equivalent or more, for 2316 of whom (50%) controller use was inadequate. Conclusions: Cumulative exposure to OCS in Australia reaches levels associated with toxicity in one‐quarter of patients with asthma using ICS. Cumulative dispensing of potentially toxic OCS amounts often accompanies inadequate inhaler controller dispensing. Better approaches are needed to improve adherence to controller therapy, improve outcomes for people with asthma, and to minimise the use and toxicity of OCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe asthma leads to debilitating symptoms for patients and excessive socioeconomic burden for the community. Comprehensive models of care are required to address complex issues, risk factors and comorbidities in patients with severe asthma, and to identify patients most appropriate for specialised treatments. Dedicated severe asthma services improve asthma control, reduce asthma exacerbations and hospital admissions, and improve quality of life. Currently, diverse models of care exist for managing severe asthma across Australia. Most referrals to severe asthma services are from respiratory physicians seeking a second opinion or from primary care for poorly controlled asthma. Despite benefits of specialised severe asthma services, many patients are not referred and resources are limited, often resulting in long waiting times. Patient referral is often unstructured and there are considerable variations in the management of severe asthma with limited access to other health care professionals such as speech pathologists and dieticians, and restricted scope to optimise patient work‐up before referral. Ongoing communication between the specialist and referring clinician is essential for continuity of care but is often lacking. Referral pathways can be optimised by developing referral criteria and guidelines to triage patients with severe asthma and to improve resource efficiency. Additional education and tools for assessing and managing severe asthma are needed, and mechanisms should be developed for involving primary care in the management of stabilised patients. Strategies to increase patient access to multidisciplinary services are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe asthma encompasses treatment-refractory asthma and difficult-to-treat asthma. There are a number of barriers in primary, secondary and tertiary settings which compromise optimal care for severe asthma in Australia. Guidelines recommend a multidimensional assessment of severe asthma, which includes confirming the diagnosis, severity and phenotype and identifying and treating comorbidities and risk factors. This approach has been found to improve severe asthma symptoms and quality of life and reduce exacerbations. Primary care providers can contribute significantly to the multidimensional approach for severe asthma by performing spirometry, optimising therapy and addressing risk factors such as non-adherence and smoking before referring the patient to a respiratory physician for review. Primary care practitioners are encouraged to remain engaged with the management of a patient with severe asthma following specialist review by assisting with community-based allied health referrals, managing general medical comorbidities and administering prescribed biological therapies. Specialists can support primary care by providing advice to individuals with indeterminate diagnosis, streamlining investigation and management of unrecognised risk factors and complex comorbidities, optimising treatment for severe or difficult asthma including assessment of suitability for and, if appropriate, initiating advanced therapies such as biological therapies. When discharging patients back to primary care, specialists should provide clear recommendations regarding ongoing management and should specify the indications requiring further specialist review, ideally offering a streamlined re-referral pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The treatment landscape in severe asthma is changing rapidly, with multiple new therapies emerging that promise to transform patient outcomes. In a patient who is not responding to conventional therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists, it is important to first consider if the diagnosis of asthma is correct and, second, to reflect on whether readily modifiable factors are contributing to poor asthma control. In selected patients it may be appropriate to consider a modified n-of-1 trial of add-on therapies such as long-acting anti-muscarinic agents, leukotriene blockers, theophylline or low dose macrolide antibiotics. A number of monoclonal antibodies are now available that target the molecular pathways that contribute to asthma pathogenesis, and more such agents are likely to emerge in the near future. These biologicals can be transformative in selected patients, markedly reducing the frequency of asthma exacerbations, and allowing many patients to reduce or eliminate their use of long term oral corticosteroids. If the promise of personalised treatment is to be fully realised, it is important that better methods are developed to target these new and expensive treatments to patients most likely to respond. The ultimate goal of inducing remission or cure of asthma is still some distance away. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Asthma remission has emerged as a potential treatment goal. This study evaluated the effectiveness of two biologics (mepolizumab/omalizumab) in achieving asthma remission., Methods: This observational study included 453 severe asthma patients (41% male; mean age ± SD 55.7 ± 14.7 years) from two real-world drug registries: the Australian Mepolizumab Registry and the Australian Xolair Registry. The composite outcome clinical remission was defined as zero exacerbations and zero oral corticosteroids during the previous 6 months assessed at 12 months and 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) ≤1 at 12 months. We also assessed clinical remission plus optimization (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80%) or stabilization (post-bronchodilator FEV1 not greater than 5% decline from baseline) of lung function at 12 months. Sensitivity analyses explored various cut-offs of ACQ-5/FEV1 scores. The predictors of clinical remission were identified., Results: 29.3% (73/249) of AMR and 22.8% (37/162) of AXR cohort met the criteria for clinical remission. When lung function criteria were added, the remission rates were reduced to 25.2% and 19.1%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses identified that the remission rate ranged between 18.1% and 34.9% in the AMR cohort and 10.6% and 27.2% in the AXR cohort. Better lung function, lower body mass index, mild disease and absence of comorbidities such as obesity, depression and osteoporosis predicted the odds of achieving clinical remission., Conclusion: Biologic treatment with mepolizumab or omalizumab for severe asthma-induced asthma remission in a subgroup of patients. Remission on treatment may be an achievable treatment target and future studies should consider remission as an outcome measure., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)