Search

BackgroundThe apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) forms the basis for severity of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), a condition expected to reprogramme metabolic pathways in humans. We aimed to identify the AHI breakpoint from which the majority of significant changes in the systemic metabolome of patients with sleep complaints occur.MethodsIn a prospective observational study on symptomatic individuals, who underwent polysomnography for the diagnosis of OSA, profiles of 187 metabolites including amino acids, biogenic amines, acylcarnitines, lysophosphatidylcholines, phosphatidylcholines and sphingomyelins were analysed with liquid chromatography mass spectrometry in peripheral blood drawn at three different time points overnight. Comparisons of rank-transformed data using a general linear model for repeated measures after dichotomising the study group at different AHI levels were applied to define the best cut-off based on Cohen's f.Results65 subjects were recruited with a median AHI of 15.6 events·h−1. The mean Cohen's f over the metabolites was highest (0.161) at an AHI level of 5 events·h−1representing the metabolomic threshold. Of the particular between-group differences, eight phosphatidylcholines, nine acylcarnitines and one amino acid (threonine) had significantly lower concentrations in the individuals with an AHI level equal to or above the metabolomic threshold. The metabolomic changes at AHI levels defining moderate and severe OSA were smaller than at an AHI of 5 events·h−1.ConclusionsThe metabolomic threshold for patients with sleep complaints described in this report for the first time coincides with the AHI threshold required to confirm the diagnosis of OSA.

BackgroundPatients 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsIn 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 ConclusionsIn 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 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 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.

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 severe adult asthma patients 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 severe asthma patients 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

Regional and/or national severe asthma registries provide valuable country-specific information. However, they are often limited in scope within the broader definitions of severe asthma, have insufficient statistical power to answer many research questions, lack intraoperability to share lessons learned, and have fundamental differences in data collected, making cross comparisons difficult. What is missing is a worldwide registry which brings all severe asthma data together in a cohesive way, under a single umbrella, based on standardized data collection protocols, permitting data to be shared seamlessly. The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) is the first global adult severe asthma registry. It is a joint initiative where national registries (both newly created and preexisting) retain ownership of their own data but open their borders and share data with ISAR for ethically approved research purposes. Its strength comes from collection of patient-level, anonymous, longitudinal, real-life, standardized, high-quality data (using a core set of variables) from countries across the world, combined with organizational structure, database experience, inclusivity/openness, and clinical, academic, and database expertise. This gives ISAR sufficient statistical power to answer important research questions, sufficient data standardization to compare across countries and regions, and the structure and expertise necessary to ensure its continuance and the scientific integrity and clinical applicability of its research. ISAR offers a unique opportunity to implement existing knowledge, generate new knowledge, and identify the unknown, therefore promoting new research. The aim of this commentary is to fully describe how ISAR may improve our understanding of severe asthma.

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

Background Clinicians are increasingly recognizing severe asthma patients in whom biologics and other add-on therapies lead to dramatic improvement. Currently, there is no agreed-upon super-responder (SR) definition. Objective To survey severe asthma experts using a modified Delphi process, to develop an international consensus-based definition of a severe asthma SR. Methods The Delphi panel was composed of 81 participants (94% specialist pulmonologists or allergists) from 24 countries and consisted of three iterative online voting rounds. Consensus on individual items, whether acceptance or rejection, required at least 70% agreement by panel members. Results Consensus was achieved that the SR definition should be based on improvement across three or more domains assessed over 12 months. Major SR criteria included exacerbation elimination, a large improvement in asthma control (two or more times the minimal clinically important difference), and cessation of maintenance of oral steroids (or weaning to adrenal insufficiency). Minor SR criteria were composed of a 75% exacerbation reduction, having well-controlled asthma, and 500 mL or greater improvement in FEV1. The SR definition requires improvement in at least two major criteria. In the future, the SR definition should be expanded to incorporate quality of life measures, although current tools can be difficult to implement in a clinical setting and further research is needed. Conclusions This international consensus-based definition of severe asthma SRs is an important prerequisite for better understanding SR prevalence, predictive factors, and the mechanisms involved. Further research is needed to understand the patient's perspective and to measure quality of life more precisely in SRs.

Background: Idiopathic Non-Specific Interstitial Pneumonia (iNSIP) is a rare interstitial lung disease, diagnosed, by definition, on the basis of a multidisciplinary team discussion (MDD). Association with an autoimmune background has been suggested in iNSIP.Aims: To test the feasibility of conducting a multinational MDD to review the diagnosis in iNSIP cases and to estimate the emergence of connective tissue disease (CTD) during follow-up.Methods: Investigators from three expert centers (Denmark, Estonia and Norway) met and discussed cases of biopsy-proven iNSIP at an international MDD. The cases were previously diagnosed at a national level between 2004 and 2014. Based on clinical, radiographic and pathological data, the diagnosis of iNSIP was re-evaluated and a consensus diagnosis was made. Cases incompatible with iNSIP were excluded. Relevant data were registered comprising any development of CTD.Results: In total, 31 cases were discussed and 23 patients were included with a diagnosis of iNSIP. The mean follow-up time was 57 months. None of the patients developed CTD according to the rheumatologic criteria during the follow up period. Four patients (17.4%) met the criteria for interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features.Conclusion: We found that an international MDD was a feasible and valuable tool in the retrospective diagnostic evaluation of iNSIP. Diagnosis was changed in a statistically significant number of patients by our international MDD team. None of the patients developed CTD during follow-up.

Background The role of miRNAs in the pathogenesis and determining the phenotypes of asthma is not fully elucidated. miR-146a has been previously shown to suppress inflammatory responses in different cells. In this study, we investigated the functions of miR-146a in human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs) in association with neutrophilic, eosinophilic, and paucigranulocytic phenotypes of asthma. Methods Bronchial brushing specimens and brochial mucosal biopsy samples were collected from adult patients with asthma and from age- and gender-matched non-asthmatic individuals. The expression of miR-146a in bronchial brushing specimens, bronchial biopsy tissue sections or cultured primary bronchial epithelial cells was analyzed by RT-qPCR or by in situ hybridization. The expression of direct and indirect miR-146a target genes was determined by RT-qPCR or ELISA. The migration of neutrophils was studied by neutrophil chemotaxis assay and flow cytometry. For statistical analysis, unpaired two-way Student’s t test, one-way ANOVA or linear regression analysis were used. Results Reduced expression of miR-146a was found in bronchial brushing specimens from asthma patients as compared to non-asthmatics and irrespective of the phenotype of asthma. In the same samples, the neutrophil attracting chemokines IL-8 and CXCL1 showed increased expression in patients with neutrophilic asthma and increased IL-33 expression was found in patients with eosinophilic asthma. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant negative association between the expression of miR-146a in bronchial brushings and neutrophil cell counts in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of patients with asthma. In bronchial biopsy specimens, the level of miR-146a was highest in the epithelium as determined with in situ hybridization. In primary conventional HBEC culture, the expression of miR-146a was induced in response to the stimulation with IL-17A, TNF-α, and IL-4. The mRNA expression and secretion of IL-8 and CXCL1 was inhibited in both stimulated and unstimulated HBECs transfected with miR-146a mimics. Supernatants from HBECs transfected with miR-146a had reduced capability of supporting neutrophil migration in neutrophil chemotaxis assay. Conclusion Our results suggest that decreased level of miR-146a in HBECs from patients with asthma may contribute to the development of neutrophilic phenotype of asthma.

Rhinovirus (RV) infections are associated with asthma exacerbations. MicroRNA‐146a and microRNA‐146b (miR‐146a/b) are anti‐inflammatory miRNAs that suppress signaling through the nuclear factor kappa B (NF‐κB) pathway and inhibit pro‐inflammatory chemokine production in primary human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs). In the current study, we aimed to explore whether miR‐146a/b could regulate cellular responses to RVs in HBECs and airways during RV‐induced asthma exacerbation. We demonstrated that expression of miR‐146a/b and pro‐inflammatory chemokines was increased in HBECs and mouse airways during RV infection. However, transfection with cell‐penetrating peptide (CPP)‐miR‐146a nanocomplexes before infection with RV significantly reduced the expression of the pro‐inflammatory chemokines CCL5, IL‐8 and CXCL1, increased interferon‐λ production, and attenuated infection with the green fluorescent protein (GFP)‐expressing RV‐A16 in HBECs. Concordantly, compared to wild‐type (wt) mice, Mir146a/b−/− mice exhibited more severe airway neutrophilia and increased T helper (Th)1 and Th17 cell infiltration in response to RV‐A1b infection and a stronger Th17 response with a less prominent Th2 response in house dust mite extract (HDM)‐induced allergic airway inflammation and RV‐induced exacerbation models. Interestingly, intranasal administration of CPP‐miR‐146a nanocomplexes reduced HDM‐induced allergic airway inflammation without a significant effect on the Th2/Th1/Th17 balance in wild‐type mice. In conclusion, the overexpression of miR‐146a has a strong anti‐inflammatory effect on RV infection in HBECs and a mouse model of allergic airway inflammation, while a lack of miR‐146a/b leads to attenuated type 2 cell responses in mouse models of allergic airway inflammation and RV‐induced exacerbation of allergic airway inflammation. Furthermore, our data indicate that the application of CPP‐miR‐146a nanocomplexes has therapeutic potential for targeting airway inflammation., miR‐146a has anti‐inflammatory properties in human bronchial epithelial cells and mouse airways during rhinovirus infection and in case of allergic inflammation. Particular cell penetrating peptide(CPP)‐miR‐146a nanocomplexes have therapeutic potential for targeting of airway inflammation.

Objective: The soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat is approved for the treatment of adult patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and inoperable or persistent/recurrent chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) following Phase 3 randomized trials. The EXPosurE Registry RiociguaT in patients with pulmonary hypertension (EXPERT) study was designed to monitor the long-term safety of riociguat in clinical practice. Methods: EXPERT was an international, multicenter, prospective, uncontrolled, non-interventional cohort study of patients treated with riociguat. Patients were followed for at least 1 year and up to 4 years from enrollment or until 30 days after stopping riociguat treatment. Primary safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) coded using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms and System Organ Classes version 21.0, collected during routine clinic visits and collated via case report forms. Results: In total, 956 patients with CTEPH were included in the analysis. The most common AEs in these patients were peripheral edema/edema (11.7%), dizziness (7.5%), right ventricular (RV)/cardiac failure (7.7%), and pneumonia (5.0%). The most common SAEs were RV/cardiac failure (7.4%), pneumonia (4.1%), dyspnea (3.6%), and syncope (2.5%). Exposure-adjusted rates of hemoptysis/pulmonary hemorrhage and hypotension were low and comparable to those in the long-term extension study of riociguat (Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension Soluble Guanylate Cyclase–Stimulator Trial [CHEST-2]). Conclusion: Data from EXPERT show that in patients with CTEPH, the safety of riociguat in routine practice was consistent with the known safety profile of the drug, and no new safety concerns were identified. © 2020 The Authors Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Bayer; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck; Actelion Pharmaceuticals; Meso Scale Diagnostics; United Therapeutics Corporation; Novartis Pharma; Merck Sharp and Dohme; GlaxoSmithKline Australia; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; Grupo Ferrer Internacional, S.A The EXPERT registry was funded by Bayer AG (Berlin, Germany) and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. The authors acknowledge the database administration by Torsten Tille, Dresden, and the project administration of Mrs Romy Hoppenz and Mrs Linda Kottke at GWT-TUD GmbH, Dresden. Medical writing services provided by Richard Murphy PhD of Adelphi Communications Ltd, Macclesfield, UK were funded by Bayer AG in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Prof Marius M. Hoeper reports personal fees from Bayer AG, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Acceleron, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Jansen, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Hans Klose reports speaker and consultancy fees from Actelion, Bayer AG, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics and research support from Actelion, Bayer AG, GSK, Pfizer, and MSD. Dr Michael Halank reports personal fees and non-financial support from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Berlin-Chemie, GSK, OMT, MSD, and Novartis. Dr George Giannakoulas reports speaker and consultancy fees from Actelion, Bayer, ELPEN Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Pfizer, Lilly, and United Therapeutics, and research support from GSK, ELPEN Pharmaceuticals, and Galenica. Dr Henning Gall has received honoraria and/or other support from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Dr Pavel Jansa reports consultancy and speaker fees from MSD, AOP Orphan, and Actelion. Prof Ekkehard Grünig reports research grants and speaker honoraria/consultancy fees from Actelion and Bayer/MSD, research grants from GSK, United Therapeutics, Bellerophon, OMT GmbH, Pfizer, Reata, and Novartis, and speaker honoraria from Bial, Medscape, and OrPha Swiss GmbH. Prof David Pittrow reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer AG, Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Biogen, Shire, and MSD outside the submitted work. Silvia Ulrich reports research grants and personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, MSD, and Orpha Swiss. Tobias J. Lange has received personal fees from Actelion, MSD, Pfizer, and OMT orphan. Dr Iraklis Tsangaris reports speaker and consultancy fees from Actelion, Bayer AG, ELPEN, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Stephan Rosenkranz reports remunerations for lectures and/or consultancy from Abbott, Actelion, Arena, Bayer, Ferrer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics; and research support to his institution from Actelion, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Repke J. Snijder reports grants from Pfizer and Actelion Pharmaceuticals. Prof Iveta Šimková reports consultancy and speaker fees from MSD, AOP Orphan, and Actelion. Dr Marc Humbert reports grants and personal fees from Bayer and GSK, and personal fees from Actelion, Merck, and United Therapeutics. Marion Delcroix has received investigator, speaker, consultant, and steering committee member fees from Actelion, Bayer AG, Bellerophon, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Pfizer, and Reata, and research grants from Actelion. Joan A. Barberà reports receipt of honoraria for consultation or speaker fees from Actelion and Merck; and research support through his institution from Actelion, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Ferrer. Joanna Pepke-Zaba reports research grants and speaker honoraria/consultancy fees from Actelion, Bayer/MSD, and GSK. Jean-Luc Vachiéry reports ongoing consultancies to Actelion, Sonnivie, Arena Pharma, Bial Portela, and Respira Therapeutics, past consultancies to AstraZeneca, BayerShering, CardioMEMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck, and United Therapeutics, and current membership of an advisory board or similar group for Actelion and GlaxoSmithKline. Jean-Luc Vachiéry's institution receives funding from Actelion Pharmaceuticals for performing clinical studies. Regina Steringer-Mascherbauer, Jens Klotsche, and Miguel-Angel Gomez Sanchez have no conflicts of interest relevant to the EXPERT study. Hossein-Ardeschir Ghofrani reports personal fees for advisory board work, and payment for lectures including service on speaker bureaus, from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Novartis, and Pfizer; consultancy fees from Actelion, Bayer, Bellerophon Pulse Technologies, GSK, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer; and grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). Pilar Escribano Subias reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer AG, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and grants from Actelion, Bayer AG, GlaxoSmithKline, and Ferrer, outside the submitted work. Gérald Simonneau reports personal fees and non-financial support from Actelion, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Douglas S. Helmersen reports industry-sponsored research with Bayer AG, United Therapeutics, and Gilead Sciences, Inc., and advisory board/speaker fees from Bayer AG and Actelion. David Langleben reports honoraria, consultation fees, research support, and/or travel expenses from Actelion, Arena, Bayer AG, Northern Therapeutics, PhaseBio, Acceleron, Janssen, and United Therapeutics. Anco Boonstra reports consultancy fees from Pfizer BV and hospitality from Teva Nederland. Lisa M. Mielniczuk reports speaker fees and honoraria from Bayer AG, and speaker fees, consultancy fees, and travel fees from Actelion. Evgenia Williams and Christian Meier are employees of Bayer AG.

There are no clinical studies that have investigated the differences in blood serum metabolome between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients and controls. In a single-center prospective observational study, we compared metabolomic profiles in the peripheral blood of OSA patients with apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) > 15/h and control individuals. Blood was obtained at 3 different time points overnight: 21:00 p.m.; 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. We used a targeted approach for detecting amino acids and biogenic amines and analyzed the data with ranked general linear model for repeated measures. We recruited 31 patients with moderate-to-severe OSA and 32 controls. Significant elevations in median concentrations of alanine, proline and kynurenine in OSA patients compared to controls were detected. Significant changes in the overnight dynamics of peripheral blood concentrations occurred in OSA: glutamine, serine, threonine, tryptophan, kynurenine and glycine levels increased, whereas a fall occurred in the same biomarker levels in controls. Phenylalanine and proline levels decreased slightly, compared to a steeper fall in controls. The study indicates that serum profiles of amino acid and biogenic amines are significantly altered in patients with OSA referring to vast pathophysiologic shifts reflected in the systemic metabolism.

Objectives We evaluated the performance of the MDR/XDR-TB Colour Test (CT) as an in-house thin-layer agar-based indirect drug susceptibility test (DST) for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in a non-expert setting in Estonia. Methods After 2 days of hands-on training for laboratory technicians, 6 panels of 150 MTB isolates were cultured onto CT plates prepared in-house in 2 laboratories. Triplicate readings of 900 CT plates resulted in 18 DST patterns for each initial isolate. Time intervals to the results and for media preparation were estimated, and intra- and interobserver agreement, test sensitivities and specificities were calculated. BACTEC MGIT 960 DST was used as a reference. Results The median time to produce DST results for isoniazid, rifampicin and levofloxacin was 13 days. CT sensitivity was 94.7% for levofloxacin, 95.8% for isoniazid and 97.3% for rifampicin. Test specificities were >97% for all 3 drugs. Interobserver agreement was 100% in Lab A and in Lab B >97% for levofloxacin and 99% for isoniazid and rifampicin. Conclusions The implementation of the CT into a new laboratory was straightforward with only minimal guidance required. This study proves that the CT is highly reproducible and easily interpreted by previously inexperienced personnel.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein), Background: Severe asthma exerts a disproportionately heavy burden on patients and health care. Due to the heterogeneity of the severe asthma population, many patients need to be evaluated to understand the clinical features and outcomes of severe asthma in order to facilitate personalised and targeted care. The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) is a multi-country registry project initiated to aid in this endeavour. Methods: ISAR is a multi-disciplinary initiative benefitting from the combined experience of the ISAR Steering Committee (ISC; comprising 47 clinicians and researchers across 29 countries, who have a special interest and/or experience in severe asthma management or establishment and maintenance of severe asthma registries) in collaboration with scientists and experts in database management and communication. Patients (=18 years old) receiving treatment according to the 2018 definitions of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 5 or uncontrolled on GINA Step 4 treatment will be included. Data will be collected on a core set of 95 variables identified using the Delphi method. Participating registries will agree to provide access to and share standardised anonymous patient-level data with ISAR. ISAR is a registered data source on the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. ISAR's collaborators include Optimum Patient Care, the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and AstraZeneca. ISAR is overseen by the ISC, REG, the Anonymised Data Ethics and Protocol Transparency Committee and the ISAR operational committee, ensuring the conduct of ethical, clinically relevant research that brings value to all key stakeholders. Conclusions: ISAR aims to offer a rich source of real-life data for scientific research to understand and improve disease burden, treatment patterns and patient outcomes in severe asthma. Furthermore, the registry will provide an international platform for research collaboration in respiratory medicine, with the overarching aim of improving primary and secondary care of adults with severe asthma globally., The International Severe Asthma Registry is conducted by Optimum Patient Care Global Limited, and co-funded by Optimum Patient Care Global Limited and AstraZeneca. ISAR is supported by grants from AstraZeneca and Optimum Patient Care (OPC) Global (a not-for-profit social enterprise). The ISAR steering committee (ISC) was involved in the development of the protocol and is responsible for approving research proposals via a democratic voting process. In addition to 47 clinicians and researchers with an interest and experience in severe asthma, the ISC also includes members of OPC and four medical experts from AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca reviewed the draft before submission; however, decision to submit was made by the authors. Medical writing support was funded by AstraZeneca in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (http://www.ismpp.org/gpp3).

Rationale and objectives Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is a genetic condition that leads to an increased risk of emphysema and liver disease. Despite extensive investigation, there remain unanswered questions concerning the natural history, pathophysiology, genetics and the prognosis of the lung disease in association with AATD. The European Alpha-1 Clinical Research Collaboration (EARCO) is designed to bring together researchers from European countries and to create a standardised database for the follow-up of patients with AATD. Study design and population The EARCO Registry is a non-interventional, multicentre, pan-European, longitudinal observational cohort study enrolling patients with AATD. Data will be collected prospectively without interference/modification of patient's management by the study team. The major inclusion criterion is diagnosed severe AATD, defined by an AAT serum level, The EARCO Registry is a non-interventional, multicentre, pan-European, longitudinal observational cohort study enrolling patients with AATD to elucidate the natural history, pathophysiology, genetics and prognosis of this condition http://bit.ly/369ScCc

NORDSTAR is a longitudinal dataset for the study of asthma comprising 3.3 million individuals and over 50 million person-years in 4 Nordic countries. The data include diagnoses, medication dispensi ...

COPD is a complex, heterogeneous condition. Even in the early clinical stages, COPD carries a significant burden, with breathlessness frequently leading to a reduction in exercise capacity and changes that correlate with long-term patient outcomes and mortality. Implementation of an effective management strategy is required to reduce symptoms, preserve lung function, quality of life, and exercise capacity, and prevent exacerbations. However, current clinical practice frequently differs from published guidelines on the management of COPD. This review focuses on the current scientific evidence and expert opinion on the management of moderate COPD: the symptoms arising from moderate airflow obstruction and the burden these symptoms impose, how physical activity can improve disease outcomes, the benefits of dual bronchodilation in COPD, and the limited evidence for the benefits of inhaled corticosteroids in this disease. We emphasize the importance of maximizing bronchodilation in COPD with inhaled dual-bronchodilator treatment, enhancing patient-related outcomes, and enabling the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD in well-defined patient groups.

Background: Oral corticosteroids (OCS) may be used for treatment of severe asthma to achieve disease control. Nordic guidelines recommend low doses and short courses of treatment due to limited long-term efficacy and risk of adverse effects. Knowledge of OCS usage patterns in asthma is limited. Aims and Objectives: Describe OCS use across ages in Swedish and Finnish severe asthma patients. Methods: The NORdic Dataset for aSThmA Research (NORDSTAR) is a population-based, observational dataset of asthma patients based on Nordic registries. Severe asthma was based on ERS/ATS definitions. Patients were grouped annually into OCS burst ( 64 years old. Results: In 2015, 7,568 (62% female) and 5,167 (67% female) patients were identified as OCS users in Sweden and Finland, respectively. Of these, more patients received OCS bursts in Sweden (54%) than Finland (15%) while more Finnish than Swedish patients received COU (96% vs 69%), chronic COU (49% vs 39%), and chronic intermittent COU (25% vs 14%). In Sweden but not Finland there were fewer COU patients aged 6-17 (57% of 362) compared to those >17 (70% of 7,206). Conclusions: OCS dispensing is consistent across age groups. High levels of OCS use in severe patients, likely already receiving maximal OCS treatment, suggest poor asthma control. The associated burden should be further investigated.

Background: A cross-border research collaboration was recently initiated across the Nordic countries. These countries maintain population-based registers containing a variety of patient-level healt ...

In 2017, the Azerbaijan prisons introduced new and repurposed drugs to the treatment of rifampicin-resistant (RR) tuberculosis (TB): bedaquiline, linezolid and clofazimine. We compared the culture conversion rate in patients with extensively drug-resistant (XDR)- and RR-TB with additional resistance to fluoroquinolones and susceptibility to 2nd-line injectables (SLI) before and after introduction of the new/repurposed drugs in Azerbaijan prisons. The data on eligible patients obtained before and after introduction of the new/repurposed drugs into the treatment regimens were subjected to logistic regression analysis. A total of 29 and 11 patients treated without and with new/repurposed TB drugs were identified with 59% and 100% of culture conversion by the 6th month of treatment, respectively. Increasing number of the effective drugs mainly contributed to the culture conversion (Table). Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-co-infection and smear- or culture-positivity from the 2nd month of treatment onward significantly decreased the chance for culture conversion by the 6th month. The HCV-co-infection and bacteriological positivity from month 2 onward impair the interim treatment outcome in XDR- and RR-TB patients with resistance to fluoroquinolones and susceptibility to SLI, while increasing the number of effective drugs improves this outcome.