Search

Background There is limited evidence on the pathways leading to severe asthma and we are presently unable to effectively predict the progression of the disease. We aimed to describe the longitudinal trajectories leading to severe asthma and to describe clinical events preceding disease progression in a nationwide population of patients with severe asthma. Methods We conducted an observational study based on Swedish data from the NORdic Dataset for aSThmA Research (NORDSTAR) research collaboration platform. We identified adult patients with severe asthma in 2018 according to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society definition and used latent class analysis to identify trajectories of asthma severity over a 10-year retrospective period from 2018. Results Among 169 128 asthma patients, we identified 4543 severe asthma patients. We identified four trajectories of severe asthma that were labelled as: trajectory 1 “consistently severe asthma” (n=389 (8.6%)), trajectory 2 “gradual onset severe asthma” (n=942 (20.7%)), trajectory 3 “intermittent severe asthma” (n=1685 (37.1%)) and trajectory 4 “sudden onset severe asthma” (n=1527 (33.6%)). “Consistently severe asthma” had a higher daily inhaled corticosteroid dose and more prevalent osteoporosis compared with the other trajectories. Patients with “gradual onset severe asthma” and “sudden onset severe asthma” developed type 2-related comorbidities concomitantly with development of severe asthma. In the latter group, this primarily occurred within 1–3 years preceding onset of severe asthma. Conclusions Four distinct trajectories of severe asthma were identified illustrating different patterns of progression of asthma severity. This may eventually enable the development of better preventive management strategies in severe asthma.

Background: Real-life evidence on prevalence and management of severe asthma is limited. Nationwide population registries across the Nordic countries provide unique opportunities to describe prevalence and management patterns of severe asthma at population level. In nationwide register data from Sweden, Norway and Finland, we examined the prevalence of severe asthma and the proportion of severe asthma patients being managed in specialist care. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study based on the Nordic Dataset for Asthma Research (NORDSTAR) research collaboration platform. We identified patients with severe asthma in adults (aged ≥18 years) and in children (aged 6-17 years) in 2018 according to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society definition. Patients managed in specialist care were those with an asthma-related specialist outpatient contact (only available in Sweden and Finland). Results: Overall, we identified 598 242 patients with current asthma in Sweden, Norway and Finland in 2018. Among those, the prevalence of severe asthma was 3.5%, 5.4% and 5.2% in adults and 0.4%, 1.0%, and 0.3% in children in Sweden, Norway and Finland, respectively. In Sweden and Finland, 37% and 40% of adult patients with severe asthma and two or more exacerbations, respectively, were managed in specialist care; in children the numbers were 56% and 41%, respectively. Conclusion: In three Nordic countries, population-based nationwide data demonstrated similar prevalence of severe asthma. In children, severe asthma was a rare condition. Notably, a large proportion of patients with severe asthma were not managed by a respiratory specialist, suggesting the need for increased recognition of severe asthma in primary care.

Background Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone. Objective To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS. Methods This was a propensity score–matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models. Results We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]). Conclusions In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization., Background: Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS. Methods: This was a propensity score–matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models. Results: We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]). Conclusions: In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and asthma frequently co-exist and share pathologic features. Taking a “global” treatment approach benefits diagnosis and treatment of both, but care is often siloed by specialty: joined-up clinics are uncommon. Our objectives were to explore expert opinion to give practical suggestions to identify adults needing global airways care; enhance cross-specialty working; and widen knowledge to support diagnosis and management, integrate with existing care pathways, and supplement existing guidelines. Methods: Sixteen practicing physicians from northern Europe were invited for their national and/or international standing in treating asthma and/or chronic rhinosinusitis. Appreciative Inquiry techniques were used to guide their discussions. Results: Key themes arising were screening and referral, collaboration on management, awareness and education, and research. Provided are screening criteria and suggestions for specialist referrals, and pointers for physicians to optimize their knowledge of global airways disease. Collaborative working is underscored, and practical suggestions are given for multidisciplinary teamworking within global airways clinics. Research gaps are identified. Conclusion: This initiative provides practical suggestions for optimizing the care of adults with CRSwNP and asthma. Discussion of the role of allergy and drug exacerbations on these conditions, and care for patients with other global airways diseases were beyond scope; however, we expect some principles of our discussion will likely benefit patients with related conditions. The suggestions bridge asthma and CRSwNP management guidelines, envisioning interdisciplinary, global airway clinics relevant to various clinical settings. They highlight the value of joint screening for early recognition and referral of patients.

Background Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. Results In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use., Background: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. Results: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Background: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may exacerbate respiratory symptoms. A recent European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper recommended the use of an acronym, N-ERD (NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease), for this hypersensitivity associated with asthma or chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyposis. Our aim was to estimate the prevalence of N-ERD and identify factors associated with N-ERD. Methods: In 2016, a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of a random adult population of 16 000 subjects aged 20–69 years was performed in Helsinki and Western Finland. The response rate was 51.5%. Results: The prevalence was 1.4% for N-ERD, and 0.7% for aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD). The prevalence of N-ERD was 6.9% among subjects with asthma and 2.7% among subjects with rhinitis. The risk factors for N-ERD were older age, family history of asthma or allergic rhinitis, long-term smoking and exposure to environmental pollutants. Asthmatic subjects with N-ERD had a higher risk of respiratory symptoms, severe hypersensitivity reactions and hospitalisations than asthmatic subjects without N-ERD. The subphenotype of N-ERD with asthma was most symptomatic. Subjects with rhinitis associated with N-ERD, which would not be included in AERD, had the fewest symptoms. Conclusion: We conclude that the prevalence of N-ERD was 1.4% in a representative Finnish adult population sample. Older age, family history of asthma or allergic rhinitis, cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, secondhand smoke, and occupational exposures increased odds of N-ERD. N-ERD was associated with significant morbidity.

Background: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics. Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson's chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons. Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/µL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p<0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147). Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to di

Introduction Treatment with biologics for severe asthma is informed by international and national guidelines and defined by national regulating bodies, but how these drugs are used in real-life is unknown. Materials and methods The European Respiratory Society (ERS) SHARP Clinical Research Collaboration conducted a three-step survey collecting information on asthma biologics use in Europe. Five geographically distant countries defined the survey questions, focusing on seven end-points: biologics availability and financial issues, prescription and administration modalities, inclusion criteria, continuation criteria, switching biologics, combining biologics and evaluation of corticosteroid toxicity. The survey was then sent to SHARP National Leads of 28 European countries. Finally, selected questions were submitted to a broad group of 263 asthma experts identified by national societies. Results Availability of biologics varied between countries, with 17 out of 28 countries having all five existing biologics. Authorised prescribers (pulmonologists and other specialists) also differed. In-hospital administration was the preferred deliverance modality. While exacerbation rate was used as an inclusion criterion in all countries, forced expiratory volume in 1 s was used in 46%. Blood eosinophils were an inclusion criterion in all countries for interleukin-5 (IL-5)-targeted and IL-4/IL-13-targeted biologics, with varying thresholds. There were no formally established criteria for continuing biologics. Reduction in exacerbations represented the most important benchmark, followed by improvement in asthma control and quality of life. Only 73% (191 out of 263) of surveyed clinicians assessed their patients for corticosteroid-induced toxicity. Conclusion Our study reveals important heterogeneity in the use of asthma biologics across Europe. To what extent this impacts on clinical outcomes relevant to patients and healthcare services needs further investigation.

Eosinophils have a broad range of functions, both homeostatic and pathological, mediated through an array of cell surface receptors and specific secretory granules that promote interactions with their microenvironment. Eosinophil development, differentiation, activation, survival and recruitment are closely regulated by a number of type 2 cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-5, the key driver of eosinophilopoiesis. Evidence shows that type 2 inflammation, driven mainly by interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of eosinophilic airway diseases, including asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and hypereosinophilic syndrome. Several biologic therapies have been developed to suppress type 2 inflammation, namely mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, omalizumab and tezepelumab. While these therapies have been associated with clinical benefits in a range of eosinophilic diseases, their development has highlighted several challenges and directions for future research. These include the need for further information on disease progression and identification of treatable traits, including clinical characteristics or biomarkers that will improve the prediction of treatment response. The Nordic countries have a long tradition of collaboration using patient registries and Nordic asthma registries provide unique opportunities to address these research questions. One example of such a registry is the NORdic Dataset for aSThmA Research (NORDSTAR), a longitudinal population-based dataset containing all 3.3 million individuals with asthma from four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden). Large-scale, real-world registry data such as those from Nordic countries may provide important information regarding the progression of eosinophilic asthma, in addition to clinical characteristics or biomarkers that could allow targeted treatment and ensure optimal pati