Search

Trung N Tran,1 Heath Heatley,2 Arnaud Bourdin,3 Andrew Menzies-Gow,4,5 David J Jackson,6 Ekaterina Maslova,5 Jatin Chapaneri,5 William Henley,2,7 Victoria Carter,2 Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan,2 Cono Ariti,2 John Haughney,8,9 David Price2,9 1BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 2Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 3Department of Respiratory Diseases, PhyMedExp, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 4Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals and School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 5BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 6Guy’s Severe Asthma Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 7Department of Health and Community Sciences University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK; 8NHS Clinical Research Facilities, Glasgow, UK; 9Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgPurpose: Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use for asthma is associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. However, no study has investigated this in relation to patterns of intermittent OCS prescription.Methods: This historical UK cohort study used primary care medical records, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, from 2008 to 2019, of patients (≥ 4 years old) with asthma prescribed intermittent OCS. Patients were categorized by OCS prescribing pattern (one-off [single], less frequent [≥ 90-day gap] and frequent [< 90-day gap]) and matched 1:1 (by sex, age and index date) with people never prescribed OCS with/without asthma. HCRU (reported as episodes, except for length of hospital stay [days] and any prescription [records]) and associated costs were compared between intermittent OCS and non-OCS cohorts, and among intermittent OCS prescribing patterns.Results: Of 149,191 eligible patients, 50.3% had one-off, 27.4% less frequent, and 22.3% frequent intermittent OCS prescribing patterns. Annualized non-respiratory HCRU rates were greater in the intermittent OCS versus non-OCS cohorts for GP visits (5.93 vs 4.70 episodes, p < 0.0001), hospital admissions (0.24 vs 0.16 episodes, p < 0.0001), and length of stay (1.87 vs 1.58 days, p < 0.0001). In the intermittent OCS cohort, rates were highest in the frequent prescribing group for GP visits (7.49 episodes; p < 0.0001 vs one-off), length of stay (2.15 days; p < 0.0001) and any prescription including OCS (25.22 prescriptions; p < 0.0001). Mean per-patient non-respiratory related and all-cause HCRU-related costs were higher with intermittent OCS than no OCS (£ 3902 vs £ 2722 and £ 8623 vs £ 4929, respectively), as were mean annualized costs (£ 565 vs £ 313 and £ 1526 vs £ 634, respectively). A dose–response relationship existed; HCRU-related costs were highest in the frequent prescribing cohort (p < 0.0001).Conclusion: Intermittent OCS use and more frequent intermittent OCS prescription patterns were associated with increased HCRU and associated costs. Improved asthma management is needed to reduce reliance on intermittent OCS in primary care.Keywords: asthma, costs, healthcare resource utilization, intermittent, oral corticosteroids

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1,2 Trung N Tran,3 Brooklyn Stanley,4 Victoria Ann Carter,4 Josef S Smolen,5 Arnaud Bourdin,6 J Mark Fitzgerald7 ,† Tim Raine,8 Jatin Chapaneri,2 Benjamin Emmanuel,3 David J Jackson,9,10 David B Price4,11 1Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guys & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 2AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 5Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 6Université de Montpellier, CHU Montpellier, PhyMedExp, INSERM, CNRS, Montpellier, France; 7The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 8Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK; 9Guy’s Severe Asthma Centre, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 10School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 11Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK†J. Mark Fitzgerald passed away on January 18, 2022Correspondence: David B Price, Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building-Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgPurpose: Associations between systemic glucocorticoid (SGC) exposure and risk for adverse outcomes have spurred a move toward steroid-sparing treatment strategies. Real-world changes in SGC exposure over time, after the introduction of steroid-sparing treatment strategies, reveal areas of successful risk mitigation as well as unmet needs.Patients and Methods: A population-based ecological study was performed from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database to describe SGC prescribing trends of steroid-sparing treatment strategies in primary care practices before and after licensure of biologics in the United Kingdom from 1990 to 2019. Each analysis year included patients aged ≥ 5 years who were registered for ≥ 1 year with a participating primary care practice. The primary analysis was SGC exposure, defined as total cumulative SGC dose per patient per year, for asthma, severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), nasal polyps, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Secondary outcomes were percentages of patients prescribed SGCs and number of SGC prescriptions per patient per year.Results: The number of patients who met study inclusion criteria ranged from 219,862 (1990) to 1,261,550 (2019). At the population level, patients with asthma or COPD accounted for 67.7% to 73.2% of patients per year with an SGC prescription. Over three decades, decreases in SGC total yearly dose ≥ 1000 mg have been achieved in multiple conditions. Patients with COPD prescribed SGCs increased from 5.8% (1990) to 34.8% (2017). SGC prescribing trends for severe asthma, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis show decreased prescribing trends after the introduction of biologics.Conclusion: Decreases in total yearly SGC doses have been shown in multiple conditions; however, for conditions such as severe asthma and COPD, an unmet need remains for increased awareness of SGC burden and the adoption or development of SGC-sparing alternatives to reduce overuse.Keywords: glucocorticoids, practice patterns, drug prescriptions, biological products, drug utilization

Background: Increasing frequency of intermittent oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescription and cumulative OCS exposure increase the risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Objective: We sought to describe the evolution and trajectory of intermittent OCS prescription patterns in patients with asthma and investigate risk factors independently associated with transitioning to a frequent prescription pattern. Methods: This historical cohort study included patients with active asthma managed in UK primary care and included in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD; opcrd.co.uk). Intermittent OCS prescription patterns were categorized as sporadic, infrequent, moderately frequent, or frequent. Prescription pattern sequences were described for those who had a frequent sequence in their final year of prescribing. We examined associations between OCS prescription pattern and the hazard of transitioning into a frequent intermittent OCS prescription pattern using multivariable Cox regression with a 10-year look-back period. Results: Of 105,229 patients with intermittent OCS prescriptions, 57.1% (n = 60,083) had a frequent OCS prescription pattern at some point. Irrespective of baseline pattern, most patients transitioned to frequent prescription during the look back. The strongest risk factors were a more frequent prescription pattern at the start of look-back period, a lower percentage peak expiratory flow rate, and higher Global Initiative for Asthma treatment step. Older age, female sex, obesity, and active smoking were also associated with a higher risk of transitioning. Conclusion: Our findings help identify those most at risk of transitioning to frequent intermittent OCS receipt and encourage earlier intervention with OCS-sparing treatments.

BackgroundTo date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials.AimTo elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life.MethodsThis was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers.ResultsOverall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and

Breda Cushen,1,&ast; Mariko Siyue Koh,2,&ast; Trung N Tran,3 Neil Martin,3,4 Ruth Murray,5 Thendral Uthaman,6 Celine Yun Yi Goh,5,6 Rebecca Vella,7 Neva Eleangovan,5,6 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,5,6 Jorge F Maspero,8,9 Matthew J Peters,10 Florence Schleich,11 Paulo Pitrez,12 George Christoff,13 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,14 Carlos A Torres-Duque,15,16 Celeste Porsbjerg,17 Alan Altraja,18 Lauri Lehtimäki,19 Arnaud Bourdin,20 Christian Taube,21 Nikolaos G Papadopoulos,22,23 Csoma Zsuzsanna,24 Unnur Björnsdóttir,25 Sundeep Salvi,26 Enrico Heffler,27 Takashi Iwanaga,28 Mona al-Ahmad,29 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,30 Job FM van Boven,31 Bernt Bøgvald Aarli,32,33 Piotr Kuna,34 Cláudia Chaves Loureiro,35,36 Riyad Al-lehebi,37 Jae Ha Lee,38 Nuria Marina,39 Leif Bjermer,40 Chau-Chyun Sheu,41,42 Bassam Mahboub,43 John Busby,44 Andrew Menzies-Gow,45 Eileen Wang,46 David B Price5,6,47 On behalf of ISAR Inventory Study Group1Department of Respiratory Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; 2Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Department of Respiratory Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; 5Optimum Patient Care Global, Cambridge, UK; 6Observational Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 7Optimum Patient Care, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 8Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 9University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 10Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, Australia; 11CHU Sart-Tilman, GIGA I3, University of Liege, Liège, Wallonia, Belgium; 12Pulmonology Division, Hospital Santa Casa de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil; 13Faculty of Public Health, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria; 14Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 15CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 16Universidad de La Sabana, Chia, Colombia; 17Department of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 19Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 20PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 21Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 22Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 23Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 24Asthma Outpatient Clinic, National Koranyi Institute for Pulmonology, Budapest, Hungary; 25Department of Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland; 26Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 27Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy; 28Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 29Microbiology Department, College of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 30Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 31University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Groningen, the Netherlands; 32Department of Thoracic Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; 33Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 34Division of Internal Medicine Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; 35Pneumology Unit, Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; 36Centre of Pneumology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; 37Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 38Division of Pulmonology and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea; 39Pneumology Service, Biocruces, Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, Spain; 40Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 41Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; 42Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; 43Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority (DHA), Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 44Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK; 45Lung Division, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospital, London, UK; 46Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health and University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver and Aurora, CO, USA; 47Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgAim: The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) uses standardised variables to enable multi-country and adequately powered research in severe asthma. This study aims to look at the data countries within ISAR and non-ISAR countries reported collecting that enable global research that support individual country interests.Methods: Registries were identified by online searches and approaching severe asthma experts. Participating registries provided data collection specifications or confirmed variables collected. Core variables (results from ISAR’s Delphi study), steroid-related comorbidity variables, biologic safety variables (serious infection, anaphylaxis, and cancer), COVID-19 variables and additional variables (not belonging to the aforementioned categories) that registries reported collecting were summarised.Results: Of the 37 registries identified, 26 were ISAR affiliates and 11 non-ISAR affiliates. Twenty-five ISAR-registries and 4 non-ISAR registries reported collecting > 90% of the 65 core variables. Twenty-three registries reported collecting all optional steroid-related comorbidity variables. Twenty-nine registries reported collecting all optional safety variables. Ten registries reported collecting COVID-19 variables. Twenty-four registries reported collecting additional variables including data from asthma questionnaires (10 Asthma Control Questionnaire, 20 Asthma Control Test, 11 Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and 4 EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level Questionnaire). Eight registries are linked to databases such as electronic medical records and national claims or disease databases.Conclusion: Standardised data collection has enabled individual severe asthma registries to collect unified data and increase statistical power for severe asthma research irrespective of ISAR affiliations.Keywords: Asia-Pacific, biologics, COVID-19, Europe, ISAR, International Severe Asthma Registry, oral corticosteroids, Registry, Middle East, Severe Asthma, Latin America, USA

Tanya M Laidlaw1,2 &ast;, Andrew Menzies-Gow3 &ast;, Scott Caveney,4 Joseph K Han,5 Nicole Martin,6,7 Elliot Israel,8 Jason K Lee,9,10 Jean-Pierre Llanos,11 Neil Martin,12,13 Ayman Megally,14 Bhavini Parikh,14 Sylvia Vong,15 Tobias Welte,16 Jonathan Corren17 1Jeff and Penny Vinik Center for Allergic Diseases Research, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 2Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 3Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 4Global Development, Inflammation, R&D, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; 5Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA; 6Biometrics, Late-Stage Development, Respiratory and Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Waltham, MA, USA; 7Cytel Inc, Waltham, MA, USA; 8Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 9Evidence Based Medical Educator Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada; 10Toronto Allergy and Asthma Clinic, Toronto, ON, Canada; 11Global Medical Affairs, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; 12Respiratory and Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 13University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; 14Late-Stage Development, Respiratory and Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 15Translational Science and Experimental Medicine, Early Respiratory and Immunology, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 16Department of Respiratory Medicine and German Center for Lung Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; 17David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Tanya M Laidlaw, Jeff and Penny Vinik Center for Allergic Diseases Research, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 60 Fenwood Road, Boston, MA, 02115, USA, Email tlaidlaw@bwh.harvard.eduPurpose: Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin. In the phase 3 NAVIGATOR study (NCT03347279), tezepelumab reduced annualized asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) versus placebo, irrespective of baseline disease characteristics, and improved lung function and symptom control versus placebo in adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma. We assessed the efficacy of tezepelumab in patients with severe asthma with or without nasal polyps (NPs) in the 2 years before randomization in NAVIGATOR.Methods: Patients with severe asthma (N=1059) were randomized (1:1) and received tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo every 4 weeks subcutaneously for 52 weeks. Prespecified exploratory analyses included: AAER over 52 weeks and changes from baseline to week 52 in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22 scores, and asthma control and health-related quality life (HRQoL) outcomes in NP subgroups. Changes from baseline in fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), blood eosinophil counts, total immunoglobulin E (IgE), eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), matrix metalloproteinase-10 (MMP-10), and serum interleukin (IL)-5, IL-6, IL-8 and IL-13 were assessed (post hoc).Results: Tezepelumab reduced the AAER over 52 weeks versus placebo by 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72, 92; n=118) and 51% (95% CI: 40, 60; n=941) in patients with and without NPs, respectively. At week 52, tezepelumab improved lung function, asthma control and HRQoL versus placebo in patients with and without NPs. Tezepelumab reduced SNOT-22 total scores (least-squares mean difference versus placebo [95% CI]) in patients with NPs at 28 weeks (– 12.57 points [– 19.40, – 5.73]) and 52 weeks (– 10.58 points [– 17.75, – 3.41]). At week 52, tezepelumab reduced blood eosinophil counts and FeNO, IgE, IL-5, IL-13, EDN and MMP-10 levels versus placebo, irrespective of NP status.Conclusion: Tezepelumab resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in sino-nasal symptoms and asthma outcomes in patients with severe asthma with comorbid NPs.Graphical Abstract: Plain Language Summary: Asthma is a long-term condition caused by ongoing inflammation of the lower airways. The main symptoms are difficulty breathing, coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Approximately 41% of patients with severe asthma also have chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, a condition that affects the upper airways and sinuses. Nasal polyps are painless soft growths inside your nose that can keep growing if not treated. Symptoms include nasal congestion with mucus, facial pain and a reduced sense of smell or taste. People with both severe asthma and nasal polyps often have severe symptoms.Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is a signaling molecule released by cells lining the airways in response to airborne triggers, such as smoke, pollen and viruses. TSLP activates several pathways that cause inflammation in the airways, leading to asthma symptoms. Tezepelumab is a biologic treatment that targets the very start of these inflammatory pathways by blocking TSLP.The 1-year-long clinical trial called “NAVIGATOR” reported that tezepelumab reduced asthma attacks and improved lung function and asthma symptom control compared with placebo in patients with severe asthma that was not controlled with their current medicines. This analysis of data from NAVIGATOR looked at patients with both severe asthma and nasal polyps, showing that tezepelumab treatment improved sino-nasal symptoms compared with placebo. Tezepelumab also reduced asthma attacks and improved asthma symptoms, regardless of a patient’s medical history of nasal polyps. The effects of tezepelumab in patients with severe nasal polyps are being investigated in another clinical trial called “WAYPOINT”.Keywords: chronic rhinosinusitis, nasal polyps, SNOT-22, thymic stromal lymphopoietin

Abstract An algorithm to describe patterns of intermittent oral corticosteroid use in the UK (n = 476,167) found that one-third of patients receiving intermittent oral corticosteroids for asthma only had short gaps (

Background: Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks the activity of thymic stromal lymphopoietin. In the phase 3 NAVIGATOR study (NCT03347279), tezepelumab reduced exacerbations by 56% compared with placebo in adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of tezepelumab in NAVIGATOR patients recruited in Japan. Methods: NAVIGATOR was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients (12–80 years old) were randomized 1:1 to receive tezepelumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Endpoints assessed included: the annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) over 52 weeks (primary endpoint) and the change from baseline to week 52 in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-6 score. The safety of tezepelumab was also assessed. Results: Overall, 97 patients recruited in Japan were randomized (tezepelumab, n = 58; placebo, n = 39). The AAER over 52 weeks was 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90, 2.64) with tezepelumab compared with 3.12 (95% CI: 1.82, 5.35) with placebo (rate ratio: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.25, 0.99]; 51% reduction). For tezepelumab and placebo, the least-squares mean (standard error) change from baseline to week 52 for pre-bronchodilator FEV1 was 0.23 (0.06) L and 0.19 (0.07) L and the ACQ-6 score was −1.12 (0.15) and −0.97 (0.19), respectively. The frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups (tezepelumab, 86.2%; placebo, 87.2%). Conclusions: Tezepelumab reduced exacerbations compared with placebo, and was well tolerated, in NAVIGATOR patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma recruited in Japan.

Wenjia Chen,1 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,2 Trung N Tran,3 Ruth B Murray,4 Chong Boon Nigel Wong,1 Nasloon Ali,4,5 Cono Ariti,4,5 Esther Garcia Gil,6 Anthony Newell,5,7 Marianna Alacqua,8 Mona Al-Ahmad,9 Alan Altraja,10 Riyad Al-Lehebi,11,12 Mohit Bhutani,13 Leif Bjermer,14 Anne Sofie Bjerrum,15 Arnaud Bourdin,16 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,4,5 Anna von Bülow,17 John Busby,18 Giorgio Walter Canonica,19,20 Victoria Carter,4,5 George C Christoff,21 Borja G Cosio,22 Richard W Costello,23 J Mark FitzGerald,24 João A Fonseca,25 Kwang Ha Yoo,26 Liam G Heaney,27 Enrico Heffler,19,20 Mark Hew,28,29 Ole Hilberg,30 Flavia Hoyte,31,32 Takashi Iwanaga,33 David J Jackson,34,35 Rupert C Jones,36 Mariko Siyue Koh,37,38 Piotr Kuna,39 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,40 Sverre Lehmann,41 Lauri A Lehtimäki,42,43 Juntao Lyu,5,7 Bassam Mahboub,44,45 Jorge Maspero,46,47 Andrew N Menzies-Gow,48 Concetta Sirena,49 Nikolaos Papadopoulos,50,51 Andriana I Papaioannou,52 Luis Pérez de Llano,53,54 Diahn-Warng Perng,55,56 Matthew Peters,57 Paul E Pfeffer,58,59 Celeste M Porsbjerg,17 Todor A Popov,60 Chin Kook Rhee,61 Sundeep Salvi,62 Camille Taillé,63 Christian Taube,64 Carlos A Torres-Duque,65 Charlotte S Ulrik,66 Seung Won Ra,67 Eileen Wang,31,32 Michael E Wechsler,68 David B Price4,5,69 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 6AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 7Optimum Patient Care, Queensland, VIC, Australia; 8AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 9Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 10Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 11Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 12College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 13Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Alberta, Western Canada, AB, Canada; 14Department of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 15Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Jutland, Aarhus, Denmark; 16PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 17Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 19Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 20Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 21Medical University-Sofia, Faculty of Public Health, Sofia, Bulgaria; 22Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 23Department of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland; 24Department of Medicine, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 25Comunity Health, Information and Decision Sciences Department (MEDCIDS) & Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 26KonKuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, Seoul, Korea; 27Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 28Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 29Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 30Medical Department, Vejle University Hospital, Jutland, Vejle, Denmark; 31Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 32Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 33Center for General Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 34UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 35School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 36Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 37Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 38SingHealth Duke-NUS Lung Centre, Singapore, Singapore; 39Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy Medical University of &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, Poland; 40Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 41Section of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 42Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 43Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 44College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; 45Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 46Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 47University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 48Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 49Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI), Milano, Italy; 50Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 51Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 52 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 53Pneumology Service, Lucus Augusti University Hospital, EOXI Lugo, Lugo, Spain; 54Biodiscovery Research Group, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 55Division of Clinical Respiratory Physiology Chest Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 56COPD Assembly of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; 57Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 58Department of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; 59Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 60University Hospital ”sv. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, Bulgaria; 61Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 62Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 63Department of Respiratory Diseases, Bichat Hospital, AP-HP Nord-Université de Paris, Paris, France; 64Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 65CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 66Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 67Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea; 68Department of Medicine, NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 69Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06 Midview City, Singapore, Singapore, 573969, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: 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 dictate biologic use.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, real-world, treatment pattern, patient characteristics

Jane R Parnes,1 Nestor A Molfino,1 Gene Colice,2 Ubaldo Martin,2 Jonathan Corren,3 Andrew Menzies-Gow4 1Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; 2AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 3University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 4Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, London, UKCorrespondence: Jane R Parnes, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, Email jparnes@amgen.comAbstract: Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is an epithelial cell-derived cytokine implicated in the initiation and persistence of inflammatory pathways in asthma. Released in response to a range of epithelial insults (eg, allergens, viruses, bacteria, pollutants, and smoke), TSLP initiates multiple downstream innate and adaptive immune responses involved in asthma inflammation. Inhibition of TSLP is postulated to represent a novel approach to treating the diverse phenotypes and endotypes of asthma. Tezepelumab, the TSLP inhibitor farthest along in clinical development, is a human monoclonal antibody (IgG2λ) that binds specifically to TSLP, preventing interactions with its heterodimeric receptor. Results of recently published phase 2 and 3 studies, reviewed in this article, provide evidence of the safety and efficacy of tezepelumab that builds on initial findings. Tezepelumab is safe, well tolerated, and provides clinically meaningful improvements in asthma control, including reduced incidence of exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with severe asthma. Clinical benefits were associated with reductions in levels of a broad spectrum of cytokines (eg, interleukin [IL]-5, IL-13) and baseline biomarkers (eg, blood eosinophils, immunoglobulin [Ig]E, fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]) and were observed across a range of severe asthma phenotypes (ie, eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic). These data strengthen the notion that anti-TSLP elicits broad inhibitory effects on pathways that are key to asthma inflammation rather than on narrower inhibition of individual downstream factors. This review presents the rationale for targeting TSLP to treat asthma, as well as the clinical effects of TSLP blockade on asthma outcomes, biomarkers of disease activity, airway inflammation, lung physiology, and patient symptoms.Keywords: thymic stromal lymphopoietin, TSLP, asthma, exacerbation rates, anti-TSLP

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1 Claire McBrien,2 Bindhu Unni,3 Celeste M Porsbjerg,4 Mona Al-Ahmad,5 Christopher S Ambrose,6 Karin Dahl Assing,7 Anna von Bülow,4 John Busby,8 Borja G Cosio,9 J Mark FitzGerald,10 Esther Garcia Gil,11 Susanne Hansen,12 Liam G aHeaney,8 Mark Hew,13,14 David J Jackson,15,16 Maria Kallieri,17 Stelios Loukides,17 Njira L Lugogo,18 Andriana I Papaioannou,17 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,19 Wendy C Moore,20 Luis A Perez-de-Llano,21 Linda M Rasmussen,22 Johannes M Schmid,23 Salman Siddiqui,24 Marianna Alacqua,25 Trung N Tran,6 Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,26 John W Upham,27 Eileen Wang,28,29 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,3,30 Victoria A Carter,3,30 Isha Chaudhry,3,30 Neva Eleangovan,3,30 Ruth B Murray,3,30 Chris A Price,3,30 David B Price3,30,31 1UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 2Kingston Hospital, London, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 4Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 5Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait; 6AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 7Department of Respiratory Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; 8UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 9Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 10The Centre for Lung Health, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, UBC, Vancouver, Canada; 11AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 12Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 13Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; 14Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 15UK Severe Asthma Network andNational Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 16School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 17 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 18Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 19Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 20Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 21Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain; 22Allergy Clinic, Department of Dermato-Allergology, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 23University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark; 24University of Leicester, Department of Respiratory Sciences & NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (Respiratory Theme), Leicester, UK; 25AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 26Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 27Diamantina Institute & PA-Southside Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; 28Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 29Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 30Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 31Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B PriceObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06 Midview City, Singapore, 573969 Tel +65 3105 1489Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors.Methods: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015– 2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018– 2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups.Results: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti–IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti–IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization.Conclusion: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, prescribing, cohort study, management, international

BackgroundThe Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) is used to assess asthma symptom control. The relationship between the questionnaire items and symptom control has not been fully studied in severe asthmatic patients, and its validity for making comparisons between subgroups of patients is unknown.MethodsData was obtained from patients in the United Kingdom Severe Asthma Registry whose symptom control was assessed using the five-item ACQ (ACQ5) (n = 2,951). Confirmatory factor analysis determined whether a latent factor for asthma symptom control, as measured by the ACQ5, was consistent with the data. Measurement invariance was examined in relation to ethnicity, sex and age; this included testing for approximate measurement invariance using Bayesian Structural Equation Modelling (BSEM). The fitted models were used to estimate the internal consistency reliability of the ACQ5. Invariance of factor means across subgroups was assessed.ResultsA one-factor construct with residual correlations for the ACQ5 was an excellent fit to the data in all subgroups (Root Mean Square Error Approximation 0.03 [90%CI 0.02,0.05], p-close fit 0.93, Comparative Fit Index 1.00, Tucker Lewis Index 1.00}. Expected item responses were consistent for Caucasian and non-Caucasian patients with the same absolute level of symptom control. There was some evidence that females and younger adults reported wakening more frequently during the night than males and older adults respectively with the same absolute level of symptom control (pConclusionThe ACQ5 is informative in comparing levels of symptom control between severe asthmatic patients of different ethnicities, sexes and ages. It is important that analyses are replicated in other severe asthma registries to determine whether measurement invariance is observed.

David Price,1,2 Andrew Menzies-Gow,3 Claus Bachert,4 Giorgio Walter Canonica,5 Janwillem Kocks,1 Asif H Khan,6 Fen Ye,7 Paul J Rowe,7 Yufang Lu,8 Siddhesh Kamat,8 Victoria Carter,1 Jaco Voorham1,9 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI), Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland; 3Royal Brompton Hospital, London, England; 4Upper Airways Research Laboratory, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; 5Personalized Medicine Asthma and Allergy Center, Humanitas University and Research Hospital, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 6Sanofi, Chilly-Mazarin, Paris, France; 7Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA; 8Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Westchester County, NY, USA; 9Data to Insights Research Solutions, Lisbon, PortugalCorrespondence: David PriceCentre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, ScotlandTel +65 6802 9724Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Although prevalence of co-existing type 2 inflammatory diseases (cT2) in asthma patients has been reported, limited data exist regarding their impact on asthma outcomes.Objective: To assess the impact of cT2 burden on asthma outcomes and to evaluate patterns of clustering of cT2 in a real-world setting.Methods: From medical records of 4.5 million enrollees in 650 primary care practices in the UK (January 2010–December 2017), patients with ≥ 1 diagnosis code for asthma at any time pre-index date (date of most recent asthma-related medical encounter) and ≥ 2 asthma-related prescriptions during the year before index date were categorized into the Global Initiative of Asthma (GINA) guideline severity steps. A cT2 burden score (range 0– 9) was assigned based on the total number of co-existing conditions (allergic conjunctivitis, allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, eczema/atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, food allergy, nasal polyps, or urticaria) for which patients received a medical diagnosis. Multivariate regression models evaluated associations between cT2 burden score and asthma exacerbations and asthma control. Factor analysis was performed to assess which cT2 comorbidities were correlated and exhibited patterns of clustering.Results: Overall, 245,893 patients with asthma were included (mean [SD] age 44.8 [22.1] years; 43.8% male). Between 55% (GINA step 1) and 60% (GINA step 5) of asthma patients had a medical diagnosis for ≥ 1 other type2dx. Patients with increased cT2 burden were significantly more likely to experience asthma exacerbations and less likely to achieve asthma control.Conclusion: Asthma patients with a higher cumulative cT2 burden score were more likely to experience worse asthma outcomes than those without any cT2 (burden score of 0).Keywords: type 2 inflammation, asthma, exacerbations, control, comorbidities, burden