Search

Exacerbation frequency strongly influences treatment choices in patients with severe asthma. What is the extent of the variability of exacerbation rate across countries and its implications in disease management? We retrieved data from the International Severe Asthma Registry, an international observational cohort of patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe asthma. We identified patients aged ≥ 18 years who did not initiate any biologics prior to baseline visit. A severe exacerbation was defined as the use of oral corticosteroids for ≥ 3 days or asthma-related hospitalization/ED visit. A series of negative binomial models were applied to estimate country-specific severe exacerbation rates during 365 days of follow-up, starting from a naive model with country as the only variable to an adjusted model with country as a random-effect term and patient and disease characteristics as independent variables. The final sample included 7,510 patients from 17 countries (56% from the United States), contributing to 1,939 severe exacerbations (0.27/person-year). There was large between-country variation in observed severe exacerbation rate (minimum, 0.04 [Argentina]; maximum, 0.88 [Saudi Arabia]; interquartile range, 0.13-0.54), which remained substantial after adjusting for patient characteristics and sampling variability (interquartile range, 0.16-0.39). Individuals with similar patient characteristics but coming from different jurisdictions have varied severe exacerbation risks, even after controlling for patient and disease characteristics. This suggests unknown patient factors or system-level variations at play. Disease management guidelines should recognize such between-country variability. Risk prediction models that are calibrated for each jurisdiction will be needed to optimize treatment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinically meaningful improvement in the Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test‐22 (SNOT‐22) was observed in patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma, and nasal polyposis (NP) treated with benralizumab in the ANDHI trial. A post hoc assessment of the effects of benralizumab on SNOT‐22 response and asthma efficacy measures in these patients was conducted for further characterization of the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for patients with severe asthma and NP. Methods: Adults with severe, eosinophilic asthma who had experienced ≥2 prior‐year exacerbations despite high‐dosage inhaled corticosteroid plus additional controller[s] were randomized to 24 weeks of benralizumab or placebo. Patients with physician‐diagnosed chronic rhinosinusitis with NP of any severity ongoing at baseline who consented to participate were included in the current ANDHI NP substudy population. Effect on NP symptoms was assessed by the SNOT‐22, with an improvement of at least 8.9 defined as clinically significant (responder). Effects on chronic asthma outcomes were assessed by means of annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AER), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and Asthma Control Questionnaire‐6 (ACQ‐6). All p‐values were nominal. Results: Of the ANDHI population (n = 656), 23% (n = 153) participated in the NP substudy (n = 96 benralizumab; n = 57 placebo). Patients were 50% female, with mean age of 53 years, had prior‐year AER = 3.3; mean pre‐bronchodilator FEV1 = 55% predicted; and median blood eosinophil count ​= 510 cells/µl. For patients with high baseline SNOT‐22 scores (>30), benralizumab treatment improved symptoms of NP as measured by SNOT‐22 from baseline to Week 24 compared with placebo (Week 24: −10.44 [p =.0176]). Percentage of responders to SNOT‐22 was greater for benralizumab vs. placebo (71.3% vs. 45.5%; p =.0036), and effect was enhanced for patients with high baseline SNOT‐22 scores (>30). A 69% reduction vs. placebo in annualized AER (0.77 vs. 2.47; p <.0001) and greater clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in SGRQ total score (−16.7), FEV1 (+0.32 L), and ACQ‐6 (–0.88) were observed (p <.0001). Benralizumab was well‐tolerated. Frequency of adverse events (AEs) was similar for benralizumab (76.0%) and placebo (73.7%) groups. Most common AEs (frequency ≥5%) reported at a greater frequency in benralizumab vs. placebo included headache, sinusitis, pyrexia, and influenza. Conclusions: These substudy data from ANDHI demonstrated the efficacy profile of benralizumab for patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma and NP, with improvement in SNOT‐22 and asthma outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 accessible in real life), the severe asthma eosinophilic phenotype was more prevalent than previously identified and was phenotypically distinct. This pragmatic gradient algorithm uses variables readily accessible in primary and specialist care, addressing inherent issues of phenotype heterogeneity and phenotype instability. Identification of treatable traits across phenotypes should improve therapeutic precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Asthma-COPD ovelap (ACO) is an umbrella term that encompasses patients with COPD and eosinophilic inflammation (e-COPD) and smoking asthmatics with non-fully reversible airflow obstruction (SA). We compared the clinical characteristics and the inflammatory profile of e-COPD and SA. Patients classified as e-COPD were older and more often male and showed significantly impaired pulmonary function (likely explained by a heavier smoking habit). On the contrary, SA had more atopic features, more reversibility of airflow obstruction and higher IgE levels. The concentrations of IL-5, IL-13, IL-8, IL-6, TNF-α, IL17 in serum were similar between the 2 groups. However, Th2-related biomarkers (periostin, FeNO and blood eosinophils) shower higher median values in e-COPD patients. Our findings reinforce the notion that ACO is a heterogeneous disorder and, as a consequence, it might be unacceptable to offer the same treatment for two related but different conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) has been recently described by international guidelines. A stepwise approach to diagnosis using usual features of both diseases is recommended although its clinical application is difficult.Methods: To identify patients with ACOS, a cohort of well-characterized patients with COPD and up to 1 year of follow-up was analyzed. We evaluated the presence of specific characteristics associated with asthma in this COPD cohort, divided into major criteria (bronchodilator test > 400 mL and 15% and past medical history of asthma) and minor criteria (blood eosinophils > 5%, IgE > 100 IU/mL, or two separate bronchodilator tests > 200 mL and 12%). We defined ACOS by the presence of one major criterion or two minor criteria. Baseline characteristics, health status (COPD Assessment Test [CAT]), BMI, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (BODE) index, rate of exacerbations, and mortality up to 1 year of follow-up were compared between patients with and without criteria for ACOS.Results: Of 831 patients with COPD included,125 (15%) fulfilled the criteria for ACOS, and 98.4% of them sustained these criteria after 1 year. Patients with ACOS were predominantly male (81.6%), with symptomatic mild to moderate disease (67%), who were receiving inhaled corticosteroids (63.2%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, and only survival was worse in patients with non-ACOS COPD after 1 year of follow-up (P < .05).Conclusions: The proposed ACOS criteria are present in 15% of a cohort of patients with COPD and these patients show better 1-year prognosis than clinically similar patients with COPD with no ACOS criteria.Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01122758; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]