Search

Background: Severe asthma may be underrecognized in primary care., Objective: Identify and quantify patients with potential severe asthma (PSA) in UK primary care, the proportion not referred, and compare primary care patients with PSA with patients with confirmed severe asthma from UK tertiary care., Methods: This was a historical cohort study including patients from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (aged ≥16 years, active asthma diagnosis pre-2014) and UK patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry (UK-ISAR aged ≥18 years, confirmed severe asthma in tertiary care). In the OPCRD, PSA was defined as Global INitiative for Asthma 2018 step 4 treatment and 2 or more exacerbations/y or at Global INitiative for Asthma step 5. The proportion of these patients and their referral status in the last year were quantified. Demographic and clinical characteristics of groups were compared., Results: Of 207,557 Optimum Patient Care Research Database patients with asthma, 16,409 (8%) had PSA. Of these, 72% had no referral/specialist review in the past year. Referred patients with PSA tended to have greater prevalence of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist add-ons (54.1 vs 39.8%), and experienced significantly (P < .001) more exacerbations per year (median, 3 vs 2/y), worse asthma control, and worse lung function (% predicted postbronchodilator FEV 1 /forced vital capacity, 0.69 vs 0.72) versus nonreferred patients. Confirmed patients with severe asthma (ie, UK patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry) were younger (51 vs 65 years; P < .001), and significantly (P < .001) more likely to have uncontrolled asthma (91.4% vs 62.5%), a higher exacerbation rate (4/y [initial assessment] vs 3/y), use inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist add-ons (67.7% vs 54.1%), and have nasal polyposis (24.2% vs 6.8) than referred patients with PSA., Conclusions: Large numbers of patients with PSA in the United Kingdom are underrecognized in primary care. These patients would benefit from a more systematic assessment in primary care and possible specialist referral., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: As-needed budesonide/formoterol is effective in patients with mild asthma for whom low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy is appropriate. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen versus maintenance low-dose ICS plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA)., Methods: A probabilistic Markov cohort model was developed that simulated time within/outside severe asthma exacerbations, conducted from a UK NHS perspective with a 70-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from the SYGMA 2 trial. Patients with mild asthma eligible for low-dose maintenance ICS therapy received as-needed budesonide/formoterol 200/6 μg or twice-daily budesonide 200 μg maintenance therapy plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg. A severe exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid use alone/in combination with an emergency department visit, or hospitalisation for acute asthma. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 EQ-5D-5L data, and all-cause- and asthma-related mortality, reduction in utility of an exacerbation, and costs were based on published data. The base-case analysis discount rate was 3.5%. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and two scenario analyses., Results: On average, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was associated with a £292.99 cost saving and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.001 versus ICS + SABA. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000/QALY, as-needed budesonide/formoterol had >85% probability of being cost-effective versus ICS + SABA. Key drivers were budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance annual exacerbation rates, mean daily budesonide/formoterol inhalations, and costs and outcomes discount rates., Conclusions: From a UK healthcare payer perspective, as-needed budesonide/formoterol is a cost-effective option for the treatment of mild asthma versus regular ICS., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of interleukin 13 in airway inflammation and remodelling in asthma is unclear. Tralokinumab is a human monoclonal antibody that neutralises interleukin 13. We aimed to evaluate whether tralokinumab would have an effect on airway eosinophilic infiltration, blood and sputum eosinophil concentrations, eosinophil activation, and airway remodelling., Methods: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at 15 centres across the UK, Denmark, and Canada. We enrolled participants of either sex aged 18-75 years with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma for 12 months or more, requiring treatment with inhaled corticosteroids at a stable dose. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive tralokinumab (300 mg) or placebo by an interactive web-based system or voice response system. Participants and study personnel were masked to treatment allocation. Both tralokinumab and placebo were administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to week 12 in bronchial biopsy eosinophil count. Secondary outcome measures included change in blood and sputum eosinophil counts. Exploratory outcomes included fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) and blood IgE concentrations. Safety analyses were carried out in all participants who received study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02449473, and with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT 2015-000857-19., Findings: Between Sept 25, 2015, and June 21, 2017, 224 participants were enrolled and screened. Of these participants, 79 were randomly assigned to receive tralokinumab (n=39) or placebo (n=40). Tralokinumab did not significantly affect bronchial eosinophil count compared with placebo at week 12 (treatment effect ratio 1·43, 95% CI 0·63-3·27; p=0·39). Compared with placebo, tralokinumab did not significantly affect blood eosinophil count (treatment effect ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·00-1·48; p=0·055) or sputum eosinophil count (0·57, 0·06-6·00; p=0·63), but FENO concentration (0·78, 0·63-0·96; p=0·023) and total blood IgE concentration (0·86, 0·77-0·97; p=0·014) were significantly reduced. 33 (85%) of 39 patients receiving tralokinumab and 32 (80%) of 40 receiving placebo reported at least one adverse event during the treatment period. No deaths in either treatment group were observed. Treatment-related adverse events occurred more frequently in the tralokinumab group than in the placebo group (11 [28%] of 39 vs seven [18%] of 40)., Interpretation: Tralokinumab did not significantly affect eosinophilic inflammation in bronchial submucosa, blood, or sputum compared with placebo, but did reduce FENO and IgE concentrations. These results suggest interleukin 13 is not crucial for eosinophilic airway inflammation control in moderate-to-severe asthma., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)