Search

The prevalence of asthma in Italy is estimated to be around 4%; it affects approximately 2,000,000 citizens, and up to 80–90% of patients have mild-to-moderate asthma. Despite the clinical relevance of mild-to-moderate asthma, longitudinal observational data are very limited, including data on disease progression (worsening vs. improvement), the response to treatment, and prognosis. Studies are needed to develop long-term, observational, real-life research in large cohorts. The primary outcomes of this study will be based on prospective observation and the epidemiological evolution of mild and moderate asthma. Secondary outcomes will include patient-reported outcomes, treatments over time, disease-related functional and inflammatory patterns, and environmental and life-style influences. This study, called the Mild/Moderate Asthma Network of Italy (MANI), is a research initiative launched by the Italian Respiratory Society and the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. MANI is a cluster-based, real world, cross-sectional, prospective, observational cohort study that includes 20,000 patients with mild-to-moderate asthma. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04796844). Despite advances in asthma care, several research gaps remain to be addressed through clinical research. This study will add important new knowledge about long-term disease history, the transferability of clinical research results to daily practice, the efficacy of currently recommended strategies, and their impact on the burden and evolution of the disease. MANI: Mild/Moderate Asthma Network of Italy SANI: Severe Asthma Network Italy GINA: Global Initiative for Asthma SABA: short acting β2-agonists ICS: inhaled corticosteroids CRF: Case Report Form [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is not clear whether mepolizumab is differently effective in allergic and nonallergic severe eosinophilic asthmatics (SEA) in real life. Objective: We tested mepolizumab effectiveness in allergic/nonallergic SEA in real life. A strict criterion to identify the 2 phenotypes was used. Method: We retrospectively considered 134 consecutive patients divided into allergic, with a positivity to at least 1 allergen to prick tests and/or IgE values ≥100 UI/mL (severe allergic eosinophilic asthma [SAEA]; n: 97–72.4%), and nonallergic, with no prick test results and normal IgE levels <100 UI/mL (severe nonallergic eosinophilic asthma [SNAEA]; n: 37–27.6%). They had taken mepolizumab for at least 6 months. Results: After 10.9 ± 3.7 months, improvements in FEV1%, FEF25–75%, exacerbation numbers, blood eosinophil (BE) counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) (ppb), percentages of patients that stopped/reduced short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) or oral corticosteroid (OC), observed after treatment, were similar in both groups. Only Asthma Control Test (ACT) increases were higher in SNAEA (8 [5–9]) than in SAEA (5 [2.5–8.5]; p = 0.016). However, no differences were found after treatment in percentages of subjects with ACT ≥20, as well as with FEV1 >80%, FEF25–75 >65%, exacerbations ≤2, BE <300 cells/µL, and FENO <25 ppb between SAEA and SNAEA. Besides, no significant relationships were found, comparing SNAEA with SAEA, for FEV1% (β = −0.110; p = 0.266), FEF25–75% (β = −0.228; p = 0.06), BE counts (β = −0.012; p = 0.918), FENO (β = 0.234; p = 0.085), ACT (β = 0.046; p = 0.660), and exacerbations (β = −0.070; p = 0.437). No different associations between lung function and SNAEA occurrence when compared to SAEA condition (FEV1 >80%: OR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.43–2.55], p = 0.923; FEF25–75 >65%: OR = 0.41 [95% CI: 0.08–2.03], p = 0.272) were detected. Neither all other parameters, such as ACT >20 (OR = 0.73 [95% CI: 0.32–1.63], p = 0.440), presence of exacerbations (OR = 1.35 [95% CI: 0.55–3.27], p = 0.512), SABA discontinuation (OR = 1.16 [95% CI: 0.40–3.39], p = 0.790), and OC cessation/reduction (OR = 3.44 [95% CI: 0.40–29.27], p = 0.258), were differently associated with 1 or the other phenotype. Conclusion: Mepolizumab can be considered as a valid therapeutic choice for either allergic or nonallergic SEA in real life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Restrictive definitions of current asthma are used in epidemiological studies to achieve a highly specific classification of subjects. However, undiagnosed asthmatics should be taken into account to correctly evaluate the impact of the disease in the general population. Methods: In an Italian multi-centre cross-sectional survey carried out in 1998-2000, 18,647 responders (20-44 years old) to a screening questionnaire were classified as having physician-diagnosed current asthma or current respiratory symptoms. Similarities in the risk factor profile and in the socioeconomic burden were considered suggestive of undiagnosed current asthma. Results: In Italy, the prevalence of physician-diagnosed current asthma was 4.9% (95% CI 4.4-5.4), while that of 'asthma attacks and/or use of anti-asthmatic drugs in the past 12 months without a diagnosis of asthma' (ADWD) was 1.5% (95% CI 1.3-1.7). Allergic rhinitis was highly associated with diagnosed current asthma [relative risk ratio (RRR) 12.48; 95% CI 9.12-17.07; reference category: neither asthma during lifetime nor current respiratory symptoms] and with ADWD (RRR 8.42; 95% CI 6.33-11.19). Chronic cough/phlegm was homogeneously associated with all the respiratory conditions, and the strongest relationship was with ADWD (RRR 7.79; 95% CI 4.95-12.25). Subjects with ADWD and diagnosed current asthmatics were characterised by high and homogeneous percentages of individuals who reported productivity losses (19.0 and 15.1%) and hospitalisations (9.2 and 6.2%) because of respiratory problems in the past year. Conclusions: The impact of current asthma seems to be largely underestimated among Italian adults, since the individuals with ADWD may be undiagnosed current asthmatics. Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The guidelines for asthma recommend that the use of anti-inflammatory therapy should be adapted to the severity of the disease. However, few data are available to assess the adequacy of the use of drugs and its influence on the control of asthma in ‘real life’. Methods: The adequacy of the current use of anti-asthmatic medication according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines was assessed in a random sample of 400 asthmatics identified in the frame of the Italian Study on Asthma in Young Adults. Asthma severity was assessed using the GINA criteria; accordingly, a patient was classified as receiving inadequate treatment if his/her current use of drugs was lower than that suggested by the guidelines for the corresponding severity level. The absence of asthma attacks in the last 3 months was used as an indicator of the disease control. Results: Fifty-five percent of the patients had persistent asthma. Overall, 48% (95% CI 41.2–54.8) of persistent asthmatics were receiving inadequate treatment, and 66% (95% CI 59.5–72.4) had not used their medication daily over the past 3 months. Persistent asthmatics who were inadequately treated had a significantly greater frequency of asthma attacks (geometric mean ratio 3.7; 95% CI 2.1–6.6) than those using an adequate dose of medication. Mild and moderate persistent asthmatics using an adequate medication regimen reported a low number of asthma attacks (median 0). At the multivariate analysis, a good control of the disease was positively associated with an adequate dose of anti-inflammatory medication (OR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.1–4.5) and was negatively associated with a later onset of asthma (OR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.93–0.99) and severe asthma (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.17–0.81). Conclusions: Despite the increase in the use of inhaled corticosteroids, half of the persistent asthmatics from the general population are using a medication regimen below their severity level. When the use of drugs follows the GINA guideline recommendations, a good control of asthma is also achievable in the daily management of the disease, particularly in the case of mild and moderate asthmatics. Copyright © 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe asthma is an important topic in respiratory diseases, due to its high impact on morbidity and mortality as well as on health-care resources. The many challenges that still exist in the management of the most difficult-to-treat forms of the disease, and the acknowledgement of the existence of unexplored areas in the pathophysiological mechanisms and the therapeutic targets represent an opportunity to gather experts in the field with the immediate goals to summarize current understanding about the natural history of severe asthma and to identify gaps in knowledge and research opportunities, with the aim to contribute to improved medical care and health outcomes. This article is a consensus document from the "International Course on Severe Asthma" that took place in Palermo, Italy, on May 10–11, 2019. Emerging topics in severe asthma were addressed and discussed among experts, with special focus on patient's needs and research opportunities, with the aim to highlight the unanswered questions in the diagnostic process and therapeutic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the field of severe asthma, the concept of disease control has recently been integrated by the one of clinical remission. With this new concept, we move on to analyze the efficacy of therapy on multiple parameters simultaneously, starting with the mandatory discontinuation of the systemic glucocorticoids, to which is added the effect on exacerbations, respiratory function, and symptoms control. The Italian severe asthma registry SANI (Severe Asthma Network Italy) drafted criteria for the definition of disease remission, allowing patients to be classified into two groups, partial and complete remission. The greater dynamism of the definition, provided by SANI, allows us to hypothesize its practical use, concerning therapy management of severe asthma patients, starting from the level of remission, with the aim to facilitate the clinical decision on replacement, continuation or modulation of patients’ therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mepolizumab (MEP) has been recently introduced to treat severe eosinophilic asthma. Trials have demonstrated a significant effectiveness in this asthma phenotype. We evaluated MEP efficacy on lung function, symptoms, asthma exacerbations, biologic markers, steroid dependence and controller treatment level in real-life. We retrospectively analyzed 134 severe asthmatics (61 males; mean age 58.3 ± 11; mean FEV 1 %:72 ± 21), treated with MEP for at least 6 months (mean duration:10.9 ± 3.7 months). FEV 1 % improved significantly after MEP. Mean FEF 25-75 also increased from 37.4 ± 25.4% to 47.2 ± 27.2% (p < 0.0001). Mean baseline blood eosinophil level was 712 ± 731/μL (8.4 ± 5.2%) decreasing to 151 ± 384/μL (1.6 ± 1.6%) (p < 0.0001), FENO levels decreased likewise. MEP treatment also led to a significant ACT improvement (mean pre:14.2 ± 4.4; mean post:20.5 ± 28) and exacerbations significantly fell from 3.8 ± 1.9 to 0.8 ± 1.1 (p < 0.0001). 74% of patients were steroid-dependent before MEP. 45.4% and 46.4% of them showed a suspension and dose reduction respectively (p < 0.0001). A significant number reduced also ICS doses. Only 67% of subjects used SABA as needed before MEP, falling to 20% after MEP. About 40% of patients highlighted a maintenance therapy step-down. Subjects showing an omalizumab treatment failure before MEP had a similar positive response when compared with omalizumab untreated patients. In real-life, MEP improved significantly all outcomes even small airway obstruction, suggesting its possible role also in distal lung region treatment. Furthermore, it demonstrated its high effectiveness in OC/ICS-sparing, in reducing SABA as needed and in stepping-down maintenance therapy. MEP is a valid alternative for patients with previous omalizumab treatment failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]