Search

Agamemnon Bakakos, Zoi Sotiropoulou, Angelos Vontetsianos, Stavroula Zaneli, Andriana I Papaioannou, Petros Bakakos 1st University Department of Respiratory Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, 11527, GreeceCorrespondence: Agamemnon Bakakos, 1st University Department of Respiratory Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Kononos 11 Street, Athens, 11634, Greece, Tel +306972455781, Email agabak@hotmail.comAbstract: Asthma is a common airway disease, affecting millions of people worldwide. Although most asthma patients experience mild symptoms, it is characterized by variable airflow limitation, which can occasionally become life threatening in the case of a severe exacerbation. The commonest triggers of asthma exacerbations in both children and adults are viral infections. In this review article, we will try to investigate the most common viruses triggering asthma exacerbations and their role in asthma immunopathogenesis, since viral infections in young adults are thought to trigger the development of asthma either right away after the infection or at a later stage of their life. The commonest viral pathogens associated with asthma include the respiratory syncytial virus, rhinoviruses, influenza and parainfluenza virus, metapneumovirus and coronaviruses. All these viruses exploit different molecular pathways to infiltrate the host. Asthmatics are more prone to severe viral infections due to their unique inflammatory response, which is mostly characterized by T2 cytokines. Unlike the normal T1 high response to viral infection, asthmatics with T2 high inflammation are less potent in containing a viral infection. Inhaled and/or systematic corticosteroids and bronchodilators remain the cornerstone of asthma exacerbation treatment, and although many targeted therapies which block molecules that viruses use to infect the host have been used in a laboratory level, none has been yet approved for clinical use. Nevertheless, further understanding of the unique pathway that each virus follows to infect an individual may be crucial in the development of targeted therapies for the commonest viral pathogens to effectively prevent asthma exacerbations. Finally, biologic therapies resulted in a complete change of scenery in the treatment of severe asthma, especially with a T2 high phenotype. All available data suggest that monoclonal antibodies are safe and able to drastically reduce the rate of viral asthma exacerbations.Keywords: asthma, virus, exacerbation, pathogenesis, lungs

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

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

Andriana I Papaioannou,1 Stelios Loukides,1 Petros Bakakos,2 Epameinondas N Kosmas,3 Nikoletta Rovina,2 Paschalis Steiropoulos,4 Evangellia Fouka,5 Georgios Hillas,6 Georgios Patentalakis,7 Marousa Kouvela,7 Nikos Tzanakis8 1 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Athens, “Attikon” University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 2 1st Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Athens, “Sotiria” Chest Hospital, Athens, Greece; 3PNOH Pulmonary Clinic, Metropolitan Hospital, Athens, Greece; 4Department of Respiratory Medicine, Medical School, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece; 5Respiratory Medicine Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, G Papanikolaou Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece; 6 5th Respiratory Medicine Department, Sotiria Chest Hospital, Athens, Greece; 7 3rd Department of Medicine, Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece; 8Department of Thoracic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Crete, GreeceCorrespondence: Andriana I Papaioannou 2nd Respiratory Medicine DepartmentUniversity of Athens, “Attikon” University Hospital, Chaidari, Athens, GreeceTel +302105831163Email papaioannouandriana@gmail.comAbstract: Pharmacological medications used for the treatment of COPD patients have increased significantly. Long-acting bronchodilators have been recognized as the mainstay of the treatment of stable COPD, while ICS are usually added in patients with COPD who experience exacerbations, despite bronchodilator treatment. In the latest years, several studies have been published showing the beneficial effect of adding ICS on dual bronchodilation in patients suffering from more severe disease comparing triple therapy with several therapeutic regiments including dual bronchodilation and providing a message that this triple therapy might be more appropriate for COPD patients. However, not all COPD patients have a desirable response to ICS treatment while long-term ICS use in COPD is associated with several side effects. In this report, we aimed to provide a review of the current knowledge on the importance of dual bronchodilation on COPD patients and to compare its use with triple therapy, by covering a wide spectrum of topics. Finally, we propose an algorithm on performing treatment step up from dual bronchodilation to triple therapy and step down from triple to double bronchodilation considering the current evidence.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dual bronchodilation, inhaled corticosteroids, triple therapy

David B Price,1,2 Sen Yang,1 Simon Wan Yau Ming,1 Antony Hardjojo,1 Claudia Cabrera,3,4 Andriana I Papaioannou,5 Stelios Loukides,5 Vicky Kritikos,6 Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,6 Victoria Carter,7 Paul M Dorinsky8 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca R and D, Mölndal, Sweden; 4Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 52nd Respiratory Medicine Department, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece; 6Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Quality Use of Respiratory Medicines Group, School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Glebe, Australia; 7Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 8Pearl – a member of the AstraZeneca Group, Durham, NC, USABackground: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) as generated through the resistance of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) device is a critical patient-dependent maneuver impacting the success of DPI medication delivery. Despite its importance, it is not routinely measured in clinical practice. Little is currently known about the relationship, if any, between PIF through DPI devices, routine spirometry and disease outcomes.Aim: The aim of this study was to identify potential predictors of PIF for different DPIs from spirometric parameters and patient characteristics and explore the association between PIF and follow-up events.Patients and methods: A retrospective observational study at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation at Attikon hospital, Athens, Greece. Spirometry was performed using an Easy on-PC™ spirometer. PIF was measured through four DPI resistances using the In-Check™ DIAL. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between PIF through resistances and spirometric parameters obtained at discharge, comorbidities and demographic parameters.Results: Forty-seven COPD patients (mean [±SD], age 71 [±9] years, 72% males, 51% current smokers) were included in this study. Overall, 85% and 15% were classified as GOLD (2017) groups D and C, respectively. Most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (70%) and cardiovascular disease (53%). In the final regression model, higher PIF was significantly associated with the following: higher FEV1 and % predicted peak expiratory flow (PEF) for Turbohaler® (R-squared value 0.374); higher FEV1 and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Aerolizer® (R-squared value 0.209) and higher FEV1, younger age and diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) for Diskus® (R-squared value 0.350). However, R-squared values for all three devices were weak (

Andriana I Papaioannou,1,2 Eleni Bania,2 Evangelos C Alexopoulos,3 Eirini Mitsiki,4 Foteini Malli,2 Konstantinos I Gourgoulianis2 13rd Respiratory Medicine Department, Sismanoglio General Hospital, Marousi, Athens, Greece; 2Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Thessaly Medical School University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece; 3Occupational Health Department, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece; 4Medical Department, Novartis Hellas, Athens, Greece Background: The prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in females appears to be increasing. Recent studies have revealed that the percentage of women with COPD in Greece is approximately 12.5%. Aims: To evaluate the burden of COPD among males and females in Greece through a nationwide cross-sectional survey and to explore sex differences regarding functional characteristics and exacerbation frequency. Methods: Data collection was completed in a 6-month period. The present study followed a nationwide sampling approach of respiratory medicine physicians. The sampling approach included three steps: 1) estimation of expected incidence and prevalence of COPD cases in each prefecture of Greece and in total; 2) estimation of expected incidence of COPD cases per physician in each prefecture; and 3) creation of a frame of three different sampling zones. Following this sampling, data were provided by 199 respiratory physicians. Results: The participating physicians provided data from 6,125 COPD patients. Female patients represented 28.7% of the study participants. Female COPD patients were, on average, 5 years younger than male COPD patients. Never smokers accounted for 9.4% within female patients, compared to 2.7% of males (P

Background/Objectives: Cardiorespiratory complications are commonly reported among patients with long COVID-19 syndrome. However, their effects on exercise capacity remain inconclusive. We investigated the impact of long COVID-19 on exercise tolerance combining cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) with resting echocardiographic data. Methods: Forty-two patients (55 ± 13 years), 149 ± 92 days post-hospital discharge, and ten healthy age-matched participants underwent resting echocardiography and an incremental CPET to the limit of tolerance. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS) and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were calculated to assess left ventricular systolic function. The E/e' ratio was estimated as a surrogate of left ventricular end-diastolic filling pressures. Tricuspid annular systolic velocity (SRV) was used to assess right ventricular systolic performance. Through tricuspid regurgitation velocity and inferior vena cava diameter, end-respiratory variations in systolic pulmonary artery pressure (PASP) were estimated. Peak work rate (WRpeak) and peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 peak) were measured via a ramp incremental symptom-limited CPET. Results: Compared to healthy participants, patients had a significantly ( p < 0.05) lower LVEF (59 ± 4% versus 49 ± 5%) and greater left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (48 ± 2 versus 54 ± 5 cm). In patients, there was a significant association of E/e' with WRpeak (r = -0.325) and VO 2 peak (r = -0.341). SRV was significantly associated with WRpeak (r = 0.432) and VO 2 peak (r = 0.556). LV-GLS and PASP were significantly correlated with VO 2 peak (r = -0.358 and r = -0.345, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with long COVID-19 syndrome, exercise intolerance is associated with left ventricular diastolic performance, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, PASP and SRV. These findings highlight the interrelationship of exercise intolerance with left and right ventricular performance in long COVID-19 syndrome.

Background: Exacerbation frequency strongly influences treatment choices in patients with severe asthma., Research Question: What is the extent of the variability of exacerbation rate across countries and its implications in disease management?, Study Design and Methods: We retrieved data from the International Severe Asthma Registry, an international observational cohort of patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe asthma. We identified patients aged ≥ 18 years who did not initiate any biologics prior to baseline visit. A severe exacerbation was defined as the use of oral corticosteroids for ≥ 3 days or asthma-related hospitalization/ED visit. A series of negative binomial models were applied to estimate country-specific severe exacerbation rates during 365 days of follow-up, starting from a naive model with country as the only variable to an adjusted model with country as a random-effect term and patient and disease characteristics as independent variables., Results: The final sample included 7,510 patients from 17 countries (56% from the United States), contributing to 1,939 severe exacerbations (0.27/person-year). There was large between-country variation in observed severe exacerbation rate (minimum, 0.04 [Argentina]; maximum, 0.88 [Saudi Arabia]; interquartile range, 0.13-0.54), which remained substantial after adjusting for patient characteristics and sampling variability (interquartile range, 0.16-0.39)., Interpretation: Individuals with similar patient characteristics but coming from different jurisdictions have varied severe exacerbation risks, even after controlling for patient and disease characteristics. This suggests unknown patient factors or system-level variations at play. Disease management guidelines should recognize such between-country variability. Risk prediction models that are calibrated for each jurisdiction will be needed to optimize treatment strategies., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: D. P. has advisory board membership with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Thermofisher; has consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Theravance; has grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, and UK National Health Service; has received payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; has received payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma and Novartis; has received payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, and Thermofisher; has received funding for patient enrollment or completion of research from Novartis; has stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); has 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology; is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. E. W. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; and has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, for which her institution has received funding. M. E. W. reports grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, Restorbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound biologic, Incyte, and Kinaset. D. J. J. has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AZ, GSK, Sanofi Regeneron, and BI; and research funding from AstraZeneca. J. B. has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. L. G. H. has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Glaxo Smith Kline, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; and is the academic lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. P. E. P. has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. D.-W. P. received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. B. G. C. declares grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. L. P.-L. reports grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and FAES; personal fees and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi; personal fees from MSD, TECHDOW PHARMA, and Leo-Pharma; grants and personal fees from GEBRO; and personal fees from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. R. A.-L. has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbot. D. L.-L. reports personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, and Carnot; and grants from Abbvie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. M. A.-A. has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline; and received a grant from Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS). C. K. R. received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Bayer. T. I. received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. E. H. declares personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes, and Circassia. G. W. C. has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. R. C. has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen; and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence, and prediction of exacerbations. N. G. P. has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, Abbvie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. A. I. P. has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GSK, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. C. M. P. has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. C. A. T.-D. has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, and Novartis. T. A. P. declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. M. H. declares grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. M. P. declares personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. P. G. G. has received speaker fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. J. M. reports speaker fees, grants, or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GSK, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini, and Noucor. C. B. reports advisory boards participation for Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and ValeoPharma; honorarium for presentations for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Grifols, Sanofi, Regeneron, and ValeoPharma; and clinical trials paid to University of British Columbia sponsored by AstraZeneza, GlaxoSmithKline, BioHaven, and Sanofi. S. C. declares receiving conference fees from Novartis S.A de C.V, Glaxosmithkline Mexico, AstraZeneca Mexico, and Sanofi Mexico. M. S. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript; and has received research funding from AstraZeneza and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneza for unrelated projects. None declared (T. Y. L., C. P. Y., R. R., L. H. M. L., B. M., G. C. C., E. A. C.-C., W. C.)., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma., Methods: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV 1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day., Results: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV 1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria., Conclusions: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria., (© 2024 The Author(s). Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Female hormones and obesity have an impact on women with asthma. We aimed to describe how these components affect asthma inflammatory processes., Methods: Sex hormones [FSH, LH, estradiol (E2), estrone (E1), testosterone and Δ4 androstenedione (A4)] and serum IL1β, IL13, IL17a, IL-5, IL6, TNF-a were measured from 11 to18 pre- and postmenopausal women with asthma., Results: Premenopausal normal weight women revealed higher levels of IL5 and IL17a than obese women on both days of the menstrual cycle (IL5: D1: 6.4 vs 1.4 pg/ml, p  = .036 and D14: 3 vs 1.4 pg/ml, p  = .045 and IL17a: D1: 13.7 pg/ml vs 10.6 pg/ml and D14: 12.4 pg/ml vs 10.6 pg/ml, p  = .009, respectively). In premenopausal women on D1, Δ4 Androstenedione was positively correlated with IL1β ( p  = .016, r  = 0.733), whereas on D14, Estradiol with IL1β ( p  = .009, r = -.768) and TNF-a with Testosterone ( p  = .004, r = -0.816), and Δ4 Androstenedione ( p  = .002, r = -0.841) negatively. In postmenopausal women, TNF-a was negatively associated with FSH ( p  = .004, r = -0.638), but positively with Testosterone ( p  = .025, r  = 0.526) and IL10 also positively with Estradiol ( p  = .007, r  = 0.610)., Conclusion: Obesity shows a protective role in asthma through the suppression of IL5 and IL17. Estrogens seem to inhibit Th1 and Th2 inflammation, while androgens have a dual role with negative and positive correlations with neutrophilic biomarkers.

COPD is a major healthcare problem and cause of mortality worldwide. COPD patients at increased mortality risk are those who are more symptomatic, have lower lung function and lower diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, decreased exercise capacity, belong to the emphysematous phenotype and those who have concomitant bronchiectasis. Mortality risk seems to be greater in patients who experience COPD exacerbations and in those who suffer from concomitant cardiovascular and/or metabolic diseases. To predict the risk of death in COPD patients, several composite scores have been created using different parameters. In previous years, large studies (also called mega-trials) have evaluated the efficacy of different therapies on COPD mortality, but until recently only nonpharmaceutical interventions have proven to be effective. However, recent studies on fixed combinations of triple therapy (long-acting β-agonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonists and inhaled corticosteroids) have provided encouraging results, showing for the first time a reduction in mortality compared to dual therapies. The aim of the present review is to summarise available data regarding mortality risk in COPD patients and to describe pharmacological therapies that have shown effectiveness in reducing mortality., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A.I. Papaioannou has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKlein, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi and ELPEN. Conflict of interest: G. Hillas has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, ELPEN, Innovis, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Pharmathen, Sanofi and UCB. Conflict of interest: S. Loukides has received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, ELPEN, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi and Specialty Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: T. Vassilakopoulos has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, ELPEN, Innovis, GSK, Menarini, Novartis and Pharmathen., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

Background: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma., Objective: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma., Methods: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV 1 ]: <50% to ≥80%)., Results: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV 1 . The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV 1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment., Conclusion: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies., Trial Registration: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Perez-de-Llano reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Techdow Pharma, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Faes Farma, personal fees from Leo-Pharma, grants and personal fees from Gebro, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr Scelo is a consultant for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Dr Canonica has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. Dr Henley is affiliated with OPRI and reports receiving travel support from Eisai Limited. Dr Larenas-Linnemann reports receiving personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Carnot, grants from AbbVie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Dr Peters declares receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. Dr Pfeffer has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Tran is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Suppli Ulrik reports receiving personal fees for talks and having participation in advisory boards and others from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Popov declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. Dr Sadatsafavi has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, TEVA, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. Dr Hew declares receiving grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. Dr Maspero reports receiving speaker fees and grants or serving on the advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini, and Noucor. Dr Gibson has received speaker fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr FitzGerald previously declared receiving grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis paid directly to UBC and receiving personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and TEVA. Dr Torres-Duque has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, and Novartis. Dr Porsbjerg has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr Papadopoulos has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, AbbVie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. Dr Papaioannou has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. Dr Heffler declares receiving personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes, and Circassia. Dr Iwanaga received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Al-Ahmad has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences. Dr Kuna reports receiving personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and Zentiva, outside the submitted work. Dr Fonseca reports receiving grants from research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis and personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and TEVA. Dr Al-Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. Dr Rhee received consulting/lecture fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. Dr Koh reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital (Singapore General Hospital) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Dr Cosio declares receiving grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr Perng (Steve) has received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. Dr Menzies-Gow is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Busby has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. Dr Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis United Kingdom, Roche/Genentech Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman-La Roche, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann-La Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; and is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine United Kingdom Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Janssen. Dr Patel has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr Wang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Wechsler reports receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, Restorbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound Biologics, Incyte, and Kinaset. Dr Altraja has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; has sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Lehtimäki has received personal fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Orion Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr Bourdin has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron and conducted consultancies with AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. Dr Bjermer has (in the last 3 years) received lecture or advisory board fees from Alk-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, and Teva. Ms Bulathsinhala is an employee of the OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Ms Carter is an employee of Optimum Patient Care, which is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Dr Murray is a consultant for OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Mr Beastall is an employee of the Optimum Patient Care Global, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Dr Denton declares receiving grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects and speaker fees from Sanofi. Dr Price has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and United Kingdom National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Commune Digital, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Medscape, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and United Kingdom) and 92.61% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the United Kingdom Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To 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., Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life., Methods: This 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., Results: Overall, 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 FEV 1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV 1 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 FEV 1 increase (adjusted R 2 : 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R 2 : 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R 2 : 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE., Conclusions: The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline., Competing Interests: CP has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. JT is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. CB reports advisory board participation of Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Takeda, ValeoPharma, honorarium for presentations for AstraZeneca/Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Sanofi-Regeneron, ValeoPharma and grants paid to UBC from BioHaven, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline. GCC declares relevant research support from AstraZeneca and Sanofi. GK has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi. He has also given lectures at meetings supported by Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. DL reports personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Carnot, grants from Abbvie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. TNT is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. RA-L has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi, and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. SB-A has received honorarium for participation in expert advisory boards and given lectures for Teva Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Meda, Mundipharma, Sanofi, Mylan and received unrestricted research grants from Mylan, AstraZeneca, Teva, Mundipharma International, GlaxoSmithKline, and Viatris. JB has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. MH declares grants and other advisory board fees made to his institutional employer from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. KK received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, ELPEN, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics, WebMD. His department has received funding and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Innovis, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis and NuvoAir. NP has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, Abbvie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. PEP has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures/webinars at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. TP declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. CR received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. MS has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. M-JT has received sponsorship to attend or speak at conferences, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Shionogi and Orient EuroPharma. CU reports personal fees for talks, participation in advisory boards etc. from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. MA-A has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences KFAS. AA has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. ABe is an employee of Optimum Patient Care Global, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. LBu is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. VC is an employee of Optimum Patient Care OPC. OPC is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. BC declares grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. KF is an employee of Optimum Patient Care Global OPCG, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. LH has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; he has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, and GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; he has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; he has also taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; he is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. RH is an employee for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI which conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. PK reports personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Zentiva, outside the submitted work. RM is a consultant for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI which conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. TN received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. LP received research grants and lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Chiesi, AstraZeneca and Grifols. DC has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and has acted as an investigator for trials sponsored by AstraZeneca. FS reports consultancy work for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi - Advisory board, received speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Amgen, Teva and research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. MW reports grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, Restorbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound Biologics, Incyte, and Kinaset. ABo has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and consultancies with AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. GB has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. He is a member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD Merck sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LC has received speaker and consultancy fees and conference expenses from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim and Menarini. ED declares grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects and speaker fees from Sanofi. JF reports grants from research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis. Personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and Teva. FH declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, TEVA, GSK, and Genentech. She has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. DJ has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. MK reports grant support from AstraZeneca, and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital Singapore General Hospital from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. LL has received personal fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Orion Pharma and Sanofi. NM is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. AM-G is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. PHwP has received honoraria for talks and advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. AP has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. PHP has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LP-d-L reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Techdow Pharma, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Faes Farma, personal fees from Leo-Pharma, grants and personal fees from Gebro, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. MP declares personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. LR received fees as a speaker from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. IS has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. CT-D has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols and Novartis. EW has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech. She has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. RC has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva. He is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence and prediction of exacerbations. PG has received speaker fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. EH declares personal fees for advisory boards participation and/or speaker activities from: Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes-Greer, Circassia, Bosch, Celltrion-Healthcare, Chiesi, and Almirall. JM reports speaker fees, grants or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini and Noucor. D-WP received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. FP reports having received lectures or advisory board fees from: Menarini, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Alk Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and Almirall. SS declares research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, and GlaxoSmithKline. C-CS has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer, and has acted as an investigator for trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Galapagos, Shionogi, Aridis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Insmed, United Therapeutics, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Areteia Therapeutics, Meiji, and Horizon Therapeutics. CT has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi and Novartis, for unrelated projects. TT is an advisory Board Member for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Mundipharma, and Janssen. Honoraria were received for these advisory boards. Honoraria were received for speaking at CMEs for AstraZeneca in the past. Conference sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Norvatis, Mundipharma and MSD. Research grants from Merck Serono Concor Study, MSD Apbord study. LBj has in the last three years received lecture or advisory board fees from Alk-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, and Teva. GWC has received research grants, as well as lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. TI received speaker bureau fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. LJ-M has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has participated in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. DP has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Commune Digital, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Medscape, Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd Australia and UK and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd Singapore; 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Porsbjerg, Townend, Bergeron, Christoff, Katsoulotos, Larenas-Linnemann, Tran, Al-Lehebi, Bosnic-Anticevich, Busby, Hew, Kostikas, Papadopoulos, Pfeffer, Popov, Rhee, Sadatsafavi, Tsai, Ulrik, Al-Ahmad, Altraja, Beastall, Bulathsinhala, Carter, Cosio, Fletton, Hansen, Heaney, Hubbard, Kuna, Murray, Nagano, Pini, Cano Rosales, Schleich, Wechsler, Amaral, Bourdin, Brusselle, Chen, Chung, Denton, Fonseca, Hoyte, Jackson, Katial, Kirenga, Koh, Ławkiedraj, Lehtimäki, Liew, Mahboub, Martin, Menzies-Gow, Pang, Papaioannou, Patel, Perez-De-Llano, Peters, Ricciardi, Rodríguez-Cáceres, Solarte, Tay, Torres-Duque, Wang, Zappa, Abisheganaden, Assing, Costello, Gibson, Heffler, Máspero, Nicola, Perng (Steve), Puggioni, Salvi, Sheu, Sirena, Taillé, Tan, Bjermer, Canonica, Iwanaga, Jiménez-Maldonado, Taube, Brussino and Price.)

Evidence from large epidemiological studies has shown that obesity may predispose to increased Th2 inflammation and increase the odds of developing asthma. On the other hand, there is growing evidence suggesting that metabolic dysregulation that occurs with obesity, and more specifically hyperglycemia and insulin resistance, may modify immune cell function and in some degree systemic inflammation. Insulin resistance seldom occurs on its own, and in most cases constitutes a clinical component of metabolic syndrome, along with central obesity and dyslipidemia. Despite that, in some cases, hyperinsulinemia associated with insulin resistance has proven to be a stronger risk factor than body mass in developing asthma. This finding has been supported by recent experimental studies showing that insulin resistance may contribute to airway remodeling, promotion of airway smooth muscle (ASM) contractility and proliferation, increase of airway hyper-responsiveness and release of pro-inflammatory mediators from adipose tissue. All these effects indicate the potential impact of hyperinsulinemia on airway structure and function, suggesting the presence of a specific asthma phenotype with insulin resistance. Epidemiologic studies have found that individuals with severe and uncontrolled asthma have a higher prevalence of glycemic dysfunction, whereas longitudinal studies have linked glycemic dysfunction to an increased risk of asthma exacerbations. Since the components of metabolic syndrome interact with one another so much, it is challenging to identify each one's specific role in asthma. This is why, over the last decade, additional studies have been conducted to determine whether treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus affects comorbid asthma as shown by the incidence of asthma, asthma control and asthma-related exacerbations. The purpose of this review is to present the mechanism of action, and existing preclinical and clinical data, regarding the effect of insulin resistance in asthma.

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV 1 % predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P  < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P  < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV 1 % predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P  = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.

Small airways are characterized as those with an inner diameter less than 2 mm and constitute a major site of pathology and inflammation in asthma disease. It is estimated that small airways dysfunction may occur before the emergence of noticeable symptoms, spirometric abnormalities and imaging findings, thus characterizing them as "the quiet or silent zone" of the lungs. Despite their importance, measuring and quantifying small airways dysfunction presents a considerable challenge due to their inaccessibility in usual functional measurements, primarily due to their size and peripheral localization. Several pulmonary function tests have been proposed for the assessment of the small airways, including impulse oscillometry, nitrogen washout, body plethysmography, as well as imaging methods. Nevertheless, none of these methods has been established as the definitive "gold standard," thus, a combination of them should be used for an effective assessment of the small airways. Widely used asthma treatments seem to also affect several parameters of the small airways. Emerging biologic treatments show promising results in reducing small airways inflammation and remodelling, providing evidence for potential alterations in the disease's progression and outcomes. These novel therapies have implications not only in the clinical aspects of asthma but also in its inflammatory and functional aspects., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare to have no conflict of interest related to the present manuscript. Anastasia Siora is employed by Chiesi Hellas S.A., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A 1 Antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) pathogenic mutations are expanding beyond the PI*Z and PI*S to a multitude of rare variants., Aim: to investigate genotype and clinical profile of Greeks with AATD., Methods: Symptomatic adult-patients with early-emphysema defined by fixed airway obstruction and computerized-tomography scan and lower than normal serum AAT levels were enrolled from reference centers all over Greece. Samples were analyzed in the AAT Laboratory, University of Marburg-Germany., Results: Included are 45 adults, 38 homozygous or compound heterozygous for pathogenic variants and 7 heterozygous. Homozygous were 57.9% male, 65.8% ever-smokers, median (IQR) age 49.0(42.5-58.5) years, AAT-levels 0.20(0.08-0.26) g/L, FEV 1 (%predicted) 41.5(28.8-64.5). PI*Z, PI*Q0, and rare deficient allele's frequency was 51.3%, 32.9%,15.8%, respectively. PI*ZZ genotype was 36.8%, PI*Q0Q0 21.1%, PI*MdeficientMdeficient 7.9%, PI*ZQ0 18.4%, PI*Q0Mdeficient 5.3% and PI*Zrare-deficient 10.5%. Genotyping by Luminex detected: p.(Pro393Leu) associated with M Heerlen (M1Ala/M1Val); p.(Leu65Pro) with M Procida ; p.(Lys241Ter) with Q0 Bellingham ; p.(Leu377Phefs*24) with Q0 Mattawa (M1Val) and Q0 Ourem (M3); p.(Phe76del) with M Malton (M2), M Palermo (M1Val), M Nichinan (V) and Q0 LaPalma (S); p.(Asp280Val) with P Lowell (M1Val) ; P Duarte (M4) , Y Barcelona (p.Pro39His). Gene-sequencing (46.7%) detected Q0 GraniteFalls , Q0 Saint-Etienne , Q0 Amersfoort(M1Ala), M Würzburg , N Hartfordcity and one novel-variant (c.1A>G) named Q0 Attikon .Heterozygous included PI*MQ0 Amersfoort(M1Ala), PI*MM Procida, PI*Mp.(Asp280Val), PI*MO Feyzin. AAT-levels were significantly different between genotypes (p = 0.002)., Conclusion: Genotyping AATD in Greece, a multiplicity of rare variants and a diversity of rare combinations, including unique ones were observed in two thirds of patients, expanding knowledge regarding European geographical trend in rare variants. Gene sequencing was necessary for genetic diagnosis. In the future the detection of rare genotypes may add to personalize preventive and therapeutic measures., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Investigation for the presence of asthma comorbidities is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma because their presence can complicate asthma management., Objective: To understand the prevalence and pattern of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adults with severe asthma and their association with asthma-related outcomes., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry from 22 countries. A total of 30 comorbidities were identified and categorized a priori as any of the following: (1) potentially type 2-related comorbidities, (2) potentially oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related comorbidities, or (3) comorbidities mimicking or aggravating asthma. The association between comorbidities and asthma-related outcomes was investigated using multivariable models adjusted for country, age at enrollment, and sex (ie male or female)., Results: Of the 11,821 patients, 69%, 67%, and 55% had at least 1 potentially type 2-related, potentially OCS-related, or mimicking or aggravating comorbidities, respectively; 57% had 3 or more comorbidities, and 33% had comorbidities in all 3 categories. Patients with allergic rhinitis, nasal polyposis, and chronic rhinosinusitis experienced 1.12 (P = .003), 1.16 (P < .001), and 1.29 times (P < .001) more exacerbations per year, respectively, than those without. Patients with nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis were 40% and 46% more likely (P < .001), respectively, to have received long-term (LT) OCS. All assessed potential OCS-related comorbidities (except obesity) were associated with a greater likelihood of LTOCS use (odds ratios [ORs]: 1.23-2.77) and, except for dyslipidemia, with a greater likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.29-1.68). All mimicking or aggravating comorbidities assessed were associated with more exacerbations (1.24-1.68 times more), all (except bronchiectasis) with increased likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.57-1.81), and all (except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with increased likelihood of LTOCS use (ORs: 1.37-1.57). A greater number of comorbidities was associated with worse outcomes., Conclusion: In a global study, comorbidity or multimorbidity is reported in most adults with severe asthma and is associated with poorer asthma-related outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: The International Severe Asthma Registry database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance [ENCEPP]/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EMA 2014; EUPAS44024) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulations, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=48848). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1121)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Scelo and Dr Murray are consultants for the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). Dr Torres-Duque has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, and Novartis. Dr Maspero reports receiving speaker fees, grants, or fees for serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini, and Noucor. Dr Tran, Dr Menzies-Gow, and Dr Martin are employees of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Hew reports receiving grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus for unrelated projects. Dr Peters reports receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Gibson has received speaking fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr Popov reports receiving relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. Dr Côté reports receiving speaking fees and consultant fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and ValeoPharma and reports receiving unrestricted grant support from GlaxoSmithKline; Dr Bergeron reports advisory board participation in Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and ValeoPharma and honorarium for presentations for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Grifols, Sanofi, Regeneron, and ValeoPharma. Dr Dorscheid is on faculty at the University of British Columbia and is supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, British Columbia Lung Association, and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. In addition, he has received speaking fees, travel grants, unrestricted project grants, and writing fees and is a paid consultant for Sanofi-Regeneron, Novartis Canada, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and ValeoPharma and is an active member of the Canadian Thoracic Society, American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, and the Allergen Research Network. Dr FitzGerald previously reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novartis paid directly to UBC and personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva. Dr Chapman reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bellus, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Inhibrx, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vertex and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Inhibrx, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda; he has a leadership or fiduciary role in Alpha-1 Canada, the Canadian Thoracic Society, and Alpha-1 Foundation. Dr Boulet has received grants for participation in clinical studies from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and BioHaven; for consulting and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Sanofi-Regeneron; and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Covis, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr Bhutani has received speaker and consultant fees for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Covis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Valeo. Dr Sadatsafavi has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. Dr Jiménez-Maldonado has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and has participated in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Duran-Silva has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr Solarte received fees from GlaxoSmithKline for participation on advisory boards. Dr Fernandez-Sanchez is a part-time employee of GlaxoSmithKline and does not hold shares in the company. Dr Bülow reports receiving speakers fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Novartis outside the submitted work and has also attended the advisory board for Novartis and AstraZeneca. Dr Bjerrum has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr Ulrik reports receiving personal fees for talks and participation in advisory boards, among others, from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Rasmussen declares receiving speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, ALK, and Mundipharma outside the submitted work and attended advisory board for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Altraja has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Bourdin has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron and consultancies with AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. Dr Taille has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi, and Novartis for unrelated projects. Dr Charriot reports receiving advisory board and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi; consulting fees for Chiesi; and serving as a trial coinvestigator for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Roche reports receiving grants and personal fees from Austral, Biosency, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Pfizer and personal fees from MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Sanofi, Menarini, and Zambon. Dr Papaioannou has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. Dr Kostikas received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, ELPEN, GILEAD, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics, and WebMD; and received funding and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Innovis, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, and NuvoAir (paid to the University of Ioannina). Dr Papadopoulos has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, AbbVie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. Dr Salvi reports receiving research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Mitchell has received speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, and Novartis and has received grants from AstraZeneca and Teva. Dr Costello has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva; is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen; and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence, and prediction of exacerbations. Dr Heffler declares receiving personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes, and Circassia. Dr Puggioni reports having received lectures or advisory board fees from Menarini, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Alk Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and Almirall. Dr Canonica has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. Dr Iwanaga received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Mona Al-Ahmad has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS). Dr Linnemann reports receiving personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, and Carnot and grants from AbbVie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Dr Garcia Ramirez received fees as a speaker and advisory board participant from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Genzyme, Chiesi, and Novartis. Dr Kuna reports receiving personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and Zentiva outside the submitted work. Dr Fonseca reports receiving grants from or has research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novartis and has received personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva. Dr Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. Dr Koh reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital (Singapore General Hospital) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Dr Kook Rhee received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. Dr Cosio declares receiving grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr de Llano reports receiving grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Teva, Faes, and Sanofi; personal fees and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi; personal fees from MSD, Techdow Pharma, GILEAD, and Leo Pharma; and grants and personal fees from GEBRO outside the submitted work. Dr Perng received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. Dr Tsai has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Orient EuroPharma. Dr Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Busby has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir outside the submitted work. Dr Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline, for which his institution received remuneration; and is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. Dr Pfeffer has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Goddard reports receiving lecture fees from Sanofi. Dr Wang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; and has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Hoyte reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech and has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Teva, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Wechsler reports receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, resTORbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound biologic, Incyte, and Kinaset. Ms Carter is an employee of Optimum Patient Care (OPC) (OPC is a cofounder of the International Severe Asthma Registry and a cofounder of the APEX-COPD initiative). Ms Bulathsinhala is an employee of OPRI. Ms Eleangovan and Mr Ariti were employees of OPRI. Dr Lyu was an employee of OPC. Dr Price has advisory board membership with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Thermofisher; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance; received grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, and the UK National Health Service; received payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma, Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Thermofisher; funding for patient enrollment or completion of research from Novartis; has stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise OPC Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); has 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology; is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation program and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Porsbjerg has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stewart's approach is known to have better diagnostic accuracy for the identification of metabolic acid-base disturbances compared to traditional methods based either on plasma bicarbonate concentration ([HCO 3 - ]) and anion gap (AG) or on base excess/deficit (BE). This study aimed to identify metabolic acid-base disorders using either Stewart's or traditional approaches in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, to recognize potential hidden acid-base metabolic abnormalities and to assess the prognostic value of these abnormalities for patient outcome., Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study, in which we collected data from patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. Electronical files were used to retrieve data for arterial blood gases, serum electrolytes, and proteins and to derive [HCO 3 - ], BE, anion gap (AG), AG adjusted for albumin (AG adj ), strong ion difference, strong ion gap (SIG), and SIG corrected for water excess/deficit (SIG corr ). The acid-base status was evaluated in each patient using the BE, [HCO 3 - ], and physicochemical approaches., Results: We included 185 patients. The physicochemical approach detected more individuals with metabolic acid-base abnormalities than the BE and [HCO 3 - ] approaches ( p < 0.001), and at least one acid-base disorder was recognized in most patients. According to the physicochemical method, 170/185 patients (91.4%) had at least one disorder, as opposed to the number of patients identified using the BE 90/186 (48%) and HCO 3 62/186 (33%) methods. Regarding the derived acid-base status variables, non-survivors had greater AG adj , ( p = 0.013) and SIG corr ( p = 0.035) compared to survivors., Conclusions: The identification of hidden acid-base disturbances may provide a detailed understanding of the underlying conditions in patients and of the possible pathophysiological mechanisms implicated. The association of these acid-base abnormalities with mortality provides the opportunity to recognize patients at increased risk of death and support them accordingly.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a pandemic since 2020, and depending on the SARS-CoV-2 mutation, different pandemic waves have been observed. The aim of this study was to compare the baseline characteristics of patients in two phases of the pandemic and evaluate possible predictors of mortality., Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter observational study that included patients with COVID-19 in 4 different centers in Greece. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the period during which they were infected during the Delta and Omicron variant predominance., Results: A total of 979 patients (433 Delta, 546 Omicron) were included in the study (median age 67 years (54, 81); 452 [46.2%] female). Compared to the Omicron period, the patients during the Delta period were younger (median age [IQR] 65 [51, 77] vs. 70 [55, 83] years, p < 0.001) and required a longer duration of hospitalization (8 [6, 13] vs. 7 [5, 12] days, p = 0.001), had higher procalcitonin levels (ng/mL): 0.08 [0.05, 0.17] vs. 0.06 [0.02, 0.16], p = 0.005, ferritin levels (ng/mL): 301 [159, 644] vs. 239 [128, 473], p = 0.002, C- reactive protein levels (mg/L): 40.4 [16.7, 98.5] vs. 31.8 [11.9, 81.7], p = 0.003, and lactate dehydrogenase levels (U/L): 277 [221, 375] vs. 255 [205, 329], p < 0.001. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was lower (3 [0, 5] vs. 4 [1, 6], p < 0.001), and the extent of disease on computed tomography (CT) was greater during the Delta wave ( p < 0.001). No evidence of a difference in risk of death or admission to the intensive care unit was found between the two groups. Age, cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury during hospitalization, extent of disease on chest CT, D-dimer, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio values were identified as independent predictors of mortality for patients in the Delta period. Cardiovascular events and acute liver injury during hospitalization and the PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio on admission were identified as independent predictors of mortality for patients in the Omicron period., Conclusions: In the Omicron wave, patients were older with a higher number of comorbidities, but patients with the Delta variant had more severe disease and a longer duration of hospitalization.

Background: Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone., Objective: To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS., Methods: This was a propensity score-matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models., Results: We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48])., Conclusions: In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is considered one of the leading causes of mortality. Cardiovascular comorbidities are diagnosed often in COPD patients, not only because of the common risk factors these two diseases share, but also because of the systemic inflammation which characterizes COPD and has deleterious effects in the cardiovascular system. The comorbid cardiovascular diseases in COPD result in several difficulties in the holistic treatment of these patients and affect outcomes such as morbidity and mortality. Several studies have reported that mortality from cardiovascular causes is common among COPD patients, while the risk for acute cardiovascular events increases during COPD exacerbations and remains high for a long time even after recovery. In this review, we focus on the prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities in COPD patients, presenting the evidence regarding the interaction of the pathophysiological pathways which characterize each disease. Furthermore, we summarize information regarding the effects of cardiovascular treatment on COPD outcomes and vice versa. Finally, we present the current evidence regarding the impact of cardiovascular comorbidities on exacerbations, quality of life and survival of COPD patients.

Objective: The impact of severe infection from COVID-19 and the resulting need for life support in an ICU environment is a fact that caused immense pressure in healthcare systems around the globe. Accordingly, elderly people faced multiple challenges, especially after admission to the ICU. On this basis, we performed this study to assess the impact of age on COVID-19 mortality in critically ill patients., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, we collected data from 300 patients who were hospitalized in the ICU of a Greek respiratory hospital. We split patients into two age groups using a threshold of 65 years old. The primary objective of the study was the survival of patients in a follow up period of 60 days after their admission to the ICU. Secondary objectives were to determine whether mortality is affected by other factors, including sepsis and clinical and laboratory factors, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), APACHE II and d-dimers, CRP, etc. Results: The survival of all patients in the ICU was 75.7%. Those in the <65 years old age group expressed a survival rate of 89.3%, whereas those in the ≥65 years old age group had a survival rate of 58% ( p -value < 0.001). In the multivariate Cox regression, the presence of sepsis and an increased CCI were independent predictors of mortality in 60 days ( p -value < 0.001), while the age group did not maintain its statistical significance ( p -value = 0.320)., Conclusions: Age alone as a simple number is not capable of predicting mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 in the ICU. We must use more composite clinical markers that may better reflect the biological age of patients, such as CCI. Moreover, the effective control of infections in the ICU is of utmost importance for the survival of patients, since avoiding septic complications can drastically improve the prognosis of all patients, regardless of age.

Sarcoidosis is an inflammatory granulomatous disease of unknown etiology involving any organ or tissue along with any combination of active sites, even the most silent ones clinically. The unpredictable nature of the sites involved in sarcoidosis dictates the highly variable natural history of the disease and the necessity to cluster cases at diagnosis based on clinical and/or imaging common characteristics in an attempt to classify patients based on their more homogeneous phenotypes, possibly with similar clinical behavior, prognosis, outcome, and therefore with therapeutic requirements. In the course of the disease's history, this attempt relates to the availability of a means of detection of the sites involved, from the Karl Wurm and Guy Scadding's chest x-ray staging through the ACCESS, the WASOG Sarcoidosis Organ Assessment Instruments, and the GenPhenReSa study to the 18 F-FDG PET/CT scan phenotyping and far beyond to new technologies and/or the current "omics." The hybrid molecular imaging of the 18 F-FDG PET/CT scan, by unveiling the glucose metabolism of inflammatory cells, can identify high sensitivity inflammatory active granulomas, the hallmark of sarcoidosis-even in clinically and physiologically silent sites-and, as recently shown, is successful in identifying an unexpected ordered stratification into four phenotypes: (I) hilar-mediastinal nodal, (II) lungs and hilar-mediastinal nodal, (III) an extended nodal supraclavicular, thoracic, abdominal, inguinal, and (IV) all the above in addition to systemic organs and tissues, which is therefore the ideal phenotyping instrument. During the "omics era," studies could provide significant, distinct, and exclusive insights into sarcoidosis phenotypes linking clinical, laboratory, imaging, and histologic characteristics with molecular signatures. In this context, the personalization of treatment for sarcoidosis patients might have reached its goal., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Papiris, Kolilekas, Rivera, Spanos, Li, Gokulnath, Chatterjee, Georgakopoulos, Kallieri, Papaioannou, Raptakis, Apollonatou, Antonogiannaki, Gialafos, Chatziioannou, Grunewald and Manali.)

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is already the third leading cause of death worldwide and simultaneously a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (also known as GOLD) committee, has been created in 1997 to increase the awareness regarding the burden of COPD. GOLD recommendations have been contributing to diagnosis, managementz, and therapy of COPD since 2001. Through these years, by reviewing published articles, GOLD aimed to provide state-of-the-art information not only for pulmonologists, but also for non-respiratory physicians, and to encourage research on COPD. From 2011, GOLD annual reports have changed the way of COPD evaluation from based entirely on spirometric parameters to more clinical indices, such as the assessment of symptoms and dyspnea alongside with exacerbations. Moreover, according to recent developments in pathophysiology of COPD, there is a trend in identifying new preclinical stages, contributing to prevention and early COPD treatment. In the field of therapeutic algorithms, changes turn to a more personalized approach. However, it is not clear in what extent this personalized disease management would be feasible and the real challenge for current recommendations is to include more patient characteristics such as comorbidities and multidimensional scores in disease evaluation.

Background: In recent years, blood eosinophils have been evaluated as a surrogate biomarker for eosinophilic airway inflammation and as a prognostic indicator of the outcomes of hospitalized COPD subjects. During an exacerbation of COPD, eosinopenia has been proposed as a prognostic marker of adverse outcomes., Objectives: The aim of the present post hoc analysis was to elucidate the effectiveness of blood eosinophils for predicting the need of NIV in subjects with COPD exacerbation., Methods: Consecutive subjects admitted to a hospital for COPD exacerbation were included in the analysis. The eosinophil count from the first complete blood count was used to designate the eosinophil groups. The relationship between the clinical characteristics and blood eosinophil counts, as dichotomized using 150 cells/μL, was evaluated. Results Subjects with blood eosinophil number < 150 k/μL had a more severe disease on admission compared to subjects with ≥150 k/μL, regarding pH 7.400 (7.36, 7.44) vs. 7.42 (7.38, 7.45), p = 0.008, PO 2 /FiO 2 levels 238.1 (189.8, 278.6) vs. 276.2 (238.2, 305.6), p < 0.001, CRP (mg/L) levels 7.3 (3.1, 19.9) vs. 3.5 (0.7, 7.8), p < 0.001 and required a longer hospital stay (days) 10.0 (8.0, 14.0) vs. 5.0 (3.0, 7.0) p < 0.001 respectively. The number of blood eosinophils correlated with the levels of CRP upon admission ( p < 0.001, r = -0.334), with arterial pH upon admission ( p < 0.030, r = 0.121), with PO 2 /FiO 2 ( p < 0.001, r = -0.248), and with duration of hospital stay ( p < 0.001, r = -0.589). In the multinomial logistic regression analysis, blood eosinophil count < 150 k/μL was an independent predictor of the use of NIV during hospital stay., Conclusion: During COPD exacerbation, low blood eosinophil levels upon admission are related to more severe disease and can be used as a predictor of the need of NIV. Further prospective studies are needed to identify the use of blood eosinophil levels as a predictor of unfavorable outcomes.

Introduction: Efficient clinical scores predicting the outcome of severe COVID-19 pneumonia may play a pivotal role in patients' management. The aim of this study was to assess the modified Severe COvid Prediction Estimate score (mSCOPE) index as a predictor of mortality in patients admitted to the ICU due to severe COVID-19 pneumonia., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 268 critically ill COVID-19 patients were included. Demographic and laboratory characteristics, comorbidities, disease severity, and outcome were retrieved from the electronical medical files. The mSCOPE was also calculated., Results: An amount of 70 (26.1%) of patients died in the ICU. These patients had higher mSCOPE score compared to patients who survived ( p < 0.001). mSCOPE correlated to disease severity ( p < 0.001) and to the number and severity of comorbidities ( p < 0.001). Furthermore, mSCOPE significantly correlated with days on mechanical ventilation ( p < 0.001) and days of ICU stay ( p = 0.003). mSCOPE was found to be an independent predictor of mortality (HR:1.219, 95% CI: 1.010-1.471, p = 0.039), with a value ≥ 6 predicting poor outcome with a sensitivity (95%CI) 88.6%, specificity 29.7%, a positive predictive value of 31.5%, and a negative predictive value of 87.7%., Conclusion: mSCOPE score could be proved useful in patients' risk stratification, guiding clinical interventions in patients with severe COVID-19.

Adult PAP patients experience similar #COVID19 rates to the general population, and high rates of hospitalisation and deaths, underscoring their vulnerability and the need for measures to prevent infection. The impact of iGM-CSF must be considered. https://bit.ly/3M0wKnZ., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: S.A. Papiris reports grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from La Roche Hoffman and Boehringer Ingelheim, and other support from Savara, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: F. Bonella reports grants and personal fees from Savara Pharma outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R. Borie has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings and/or travel received from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and Chiesi outside the submitted work; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Savara, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Molina-Molina reports personal fees and grants from Esteve-Teijin, Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E. Jouneau reports personal fees and other support from Actelion, AIRB, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon Therapeutics, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, FibroGen, Galecto Biotech, Genzyme, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, LVL, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pharm-Olam, Pfizer, Pliant Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd, Sanofi and Savara-Serendex, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. McCarthy is a scientific advisory board member of Savara Inc. unrelated to this work and has not received any payment from Savara Inc. for any work to date. Conflict of interest: E. Bendstrup reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Hofmann la Roche, and personal fees from Galapagos, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Griese has received grants or contracts from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; has participated on a data safety or advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; and is the Head of chILD-EU, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E.D. Manali reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from La Roche Hoffman; grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim; and other support from Savara, all outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Introduction: In recent years, monoclonal antibodies targeting Type-2 inflammatory pathways have been developed for severe asthma treatment. However, even when patients are carefully selected, the response to treatment varies., Areas Covered: Different studies have evaluated response to therapy with biologics such as exacerbation reduction, symptom improvement, pulmonary function increase, improvement in QoL, or decrease of oral corticosteroids, showing that all patients do not respond to all disease aspects and leading to an extensive debate regarding the definition of response., Expert Opinion: Assessing response to therapy is of great importance, but since there is no uniform definition of treatment response, the recognition of patients who really benefit from these therapies remains an unmet need. In the same context, identifying non-responding patients in which biologic therapy should be switched or substituted by alternative treatment options is of paramount importance. In this review, we present the road trip of the definition of therapeutic response to biologics in severe asthmatics by presenting the current relevant medical literature. We also present the suggested predictors of response, with an emphasis on the so-called super-responders. Finally, we discuss the recent insights regarding asthma remission as a feasible treatment goal and provide a simple algorithm for the evaluation of response.

Despite that COPD remains one of the most common respiratory diseases worldwide, it can be managed effectively with certain treatments and, more importantly, be prevented by the early implementation of various measures. The pathology and pathophysiology of this disease continue to be studied, with new pharmacological and invasive therapies emerging. In this consensus paper, the Working Group of the Hellenic Thoracic Society aimed to consolidate the up-to-date information and new advances in the treatment of COPD. Local and international data on its prevalence are presented, with revised strategies on the diagnostic approach and the evaluation of risk assessment and disease severity classification. Emphasis is placed on the management and therapy of patients with COPD, covering both common principles, specialized modalities, and algorithms to distinguish between home care and the need for hospitalization. Although pharmacological treatment is commonly recognized in COPD, an integrative approach of pulmonary rehabilitation, physical activity, patient education, and self-assessment should be encountered for a comprehensive treatment, prevention of exacerbations, and increased quality of life in patients.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA) are common conditions that often coexist [Overlap syndrome (OS)]. OS has important implications in the diagnosis, treatment, and patient outcome of both disorders. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential to evaluate symptoms, impact of symptoms on activities of daily living, and treatment response. The present review aims to display the potential usefulness of PROs measurements (PROMs) regarding the initial evaluation and treatment of both conditions (COPD and OSA) in OS patients. More specifically, we review PROMs regarding symptoms, mental health indices and health-related quality of life in patients with OS. These PROMs have the potential to add value to clinical research and daily practice in certain aspects that are important to patients.

IL-26 is a cytokine expressed by infiltrating pro-inflammatory IL-17-producing T cells in the tissues of patients with chronic lung inflammation. IL-26 induces the chemotactic response of human neutrophils to bacteria and other inflammatory stimuli. In recent years, the innovative properties of IL-26 have been described. Studies have shown that, as DNA is released from damaged cells, it binds to IL-26, which plays the role of a carrier molecule for extracellular DNA, further contributing to its binding to the site of inflammation. This mechanism of action indicates that IL-26 may serve both as a driver as well as a stimulus of the inflammatory process, leading to the installation of a noxious amplification loop and, eventually, persistent inflammation. IL-26 also demonstrates direct antimicrobial effects derived from its capability to create pores and disrupt bacterial membranes, as indicated by the presence of membrane blebs on the surface of the bacteria and cytosolic leakage pores in bacterial walls, produced in response to microbial stimuli in human airways by several different immune and structural cells. Surprisingly, while this particular cytokine induces the gathering of neutrophils in areas of infection, it also exhibits inhibitory and pro-inflammatory effects on airway epithelial and immune cells. These remarkable effects underline the necessity of a better understating of its biological behavior and its role in the pathophysiology and disease burden in several smoking-related airway inflammatory disorders, such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and chronic bronchitis. In this review, we aim to discuss the current role of IL-26 in the lung, with an emphasis on systemic inflammation in patients suffering from COPD and chronic bronchitis.

Background: At the beginning of the pandemic, there have been considerable concerns regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and outcomes in patients with severe asthma treated with biologics., Objective: To prospectively observe a cohort of severe asthmatics treated with biologics for the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and disease severity during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Physicians from centers treating patients with severe asthma all over Greece provided demographic and medical data regarding their patients treated with biologics. Physicians were also asked to follow up patients during the pandemic and to perform a polymerase chain reaction test in case of a suspected SARS-Cov-2 infection., Results: Among the 591 severe asthmatics (63.5% female) included in the study, 219 (37.1%) were treated with omalizumab, 358 (60.6%) with mepolizumab, and 14 (2.4%) with benralizumab. In total, 26 patients (4.4%) had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 (34.6%) of whom were admitted to the hospital because of severe COVID-19, and 1 required mechanical ventilation and died 19 days after admission. Of the 26 infected patients, 5 (19.2%) experienced asthma control deterioration, characterized as exacerbation that required treatment with systemic corticosteroids. The scheduled administration of the biological therapy was performed timely in all patients with the exception of 2, in whom it was postponed for 1 week according to their doctors' suggestion., Conclusion: Our study confirms that despite the initial concerns, SARS-CoV-2 infection is not more common in asthmatics treated with biologics compared with the general population, whereas the use of biologic treatments for severe asthma during the COVID-19 pandemic does not seem to be related to adverse outcomes from severe COVID-19., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sestrins (Sesns) are a family of highly conserved stress-inducible proteins and various stresses have been shown to strongly up-regulate them. Sestrin 2 (Sesn2) deficiency has been shown to partially suppress pulmonary emphysema. The aim of this study was to evaluate Sesn2 levels in COPD patients and its possible associations with the presence of emphysema and blood eosinophils. All patients underwent lung function testing and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the chest. The presence of emphysematous lesions in >15% of the pulmonary parenchyma was considered as significant emphysema. Sixty-seven patients were included in the study. 40/67 patients were characterized as having significant emphysema. Patients with significant emphysema had higher levels of Sesn2 (ng/ml) [median (IQR) 6.7 (2.7,10.3 vs 1.09 (0.9,1.9), p<0.001)] and significantly lower % and absolute blood eosinophil counts (cells/μL) compared to patients without emphysema [1 (0, 2) vs 4 (2, 4) p<0.001 and 62 (0, 110) vs 248 (180, 300), p<0.001 respectively]. Sesn2 presented a significant positive correlation to the score of emphysema in HRCT (rs = 0.87, p<0.001) and similar positive but weaker correlation to FRC (rs = 0.27, p = 0.024). Negative correlations were observed between Sesn2 and either the % of blood eosinophils and/or the absolute blood eosinophil count (rs = -0.79, p<0.001, and rs = -0.78, p<0.001 respectively). Sesn2 levels above 1.87 ng/ml showed a high diagnostic performance for the presence of significant emphysema in HRCT with an AUC 0.93, 95% CI (0.85,0.98), p<0.001. Sesn2 could serve as a potential biomarker of emphysema., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease usually characterized by chronic airway inflammation, in which several phenotypes have been described, related to the age of onset, symptoms, inflammatory characteristics and treatment response. The identification of the inflammatory phenotype in asthma is very useful, since it allows for both the recognition of the asthmatic triggering factor as well as the optimization of treatment The paucigranulocytic phenotype of asthma (PGA) is characterized by sputum eosinophil levels <1−3% and sputum neutrophil levels < 60%. The precise characteristics and the pathobiology of PGA are not fully understood, and, in some cases, it seems to represent a previous eosinophilic phenotype with a good response to anti-inflammatory treatment. However, many patients with PGA remain uncontrolled and experience asthmatic symptoms and exacerbations, irrespective of the low grade of airway inflammation. This observation leads to the hypothesis that PGA might also be either a special phenotype driven by different kinds of cells, such as macrophages or mast cells, or a non-inflammatory phenotype with a low grade of eosinophilic inflammation. In this review, we aim to describe the special characteristics of PGA and the potential therapeutic interventions that could be offered to these patients.

Background: Regulatory bodies have approved five biologics for severe asthma. However, regional differences in accessibility may limit the global potential for personalized medicine., Objective: To compare global differences in ease of access to biologics., Methods: In April 2021, national prescription criteria for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were reviewed by severe asthma experts collaborating in the International Severe Asthma Registry. Outcomes (per country, per biologic) were (1) country-specific prescription criteria and (2) development of the Biologic Accessibility Score (BACS). The BACS composite score incorporates 10 prescription criteria, each with a maximum score of 10 points. Referenced to European Medicines Agency marketing authorization specifications, a higher score reflects easier access., Results: Biologic prescription criteria differed substantially across 28 countries from five continents. Blood eosinophil count thresholds (usually ≥300 cells/μL) and exacerbations were key requirements for anti-IgE/anti-IL-5/5R prescriptions in around 80% of licensed countries. Most countries (40% for dupilumab to 54% for mepolizumab) require two or more moderate or severe exacerbations, whereas numbers ranged from none to four. Moreover, 0% (for reslizumab) to 21% (for omalizumab) of countries required long-term oral corticosteroid use. The BACS highlighted marked between-country differences in ease of access. For omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, only two, one, four, and seven countries, respectively, scored equal or higher than the European Medicines Agency reference BACS. For reslizumab, all countries scored lower., Conclusions: Although some differences were expected in country-specific biologic prescription criteria and ease of access, the substantial differences found in the current study present a challenge to implementing precision medicine across the world., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The term asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) has been used to identify a heterogeneous condition in which patients present with airflow limitation that is not completely reversible and clinical and inflammatory features of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). ACO diagnosis may be difficult in clinical practice, while controversy still exists regarding its definition, pathophysiology, and impact. Patients with ACO experience a greater disease burden compared to patients with asthma or COPD alone, but in contrast they show better response to inhaled corticosteroid treatment than other COPD phenotypes. Current management recommendations focus on defining specific and measurable treatable clinical traits, according to disease phenotypes and underlying biological mechanisms for every single patient. In this publication, we review the current knowledge on definition, pathophysiology, clinical characteristics, and management options of ACO.

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AIP has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKlein, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, and ELPEN. SL has received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKlein, Menarini, Novartis and Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics. PB has received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKlein, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi and Gilead.

Background: Monogenic and polygenic inheritances are evidenced for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Pathogenic variations in surfactant protein-related genes, telomere-related genes (TRGs), and a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the promoter of MUC5B gene encoding mucin 5B (rs35705950 T risk allele) are reported. This French-Greek collaborative study, Gen-Phen-Re-GreekS in inheritable IPF (iIPF), aimed to investigate genetic components and patients' characteristics in the Greek national IPF cohort with suspected heritability., Patients and Methods: 150 patients with familial PF, personal-family extrapulmonary disease suggesting short telomere syndrome, and/or young age IPF were analyzed., Results: MUC5B rs35705950 T risk allele was detected in 103 patients (90 heterozygous, 13 homozygous, allelic frequency of 39%), monoallelic TRG pathogenic variations in 19 patients (8 TERT, 5 TERC, 2 RTEL1, 2 PARN, 1 NOP10, and 1 NHP2), and biallelic ABCA3 pathogenic variations in 3. Overlapping MUC5B rs35705950 T risk allele and TRG pathogenic variations were shown in 11 patients (5 TERT, 3 TERC, 1 PARN, 1 NOP10, and 1 NHP2), MUC5B rs35705950 T risk allele, and biallelic ABCA3 pathogenic variations in 2. In 38 patients, neither MUC5B rs35705950 T risk allele nor TRG pathogenic variations were detectable. Kaplan-Meier curves showed differences in time-to-death (p = 0.025) where patients with MUC5B rs35705950 T risk allele alone or in combination with TRG pathogenic variations presented better prognosis., Conclusion: The Gen-Phen-Re-GreekS in iIPF identified multiple and overlapping genetic components including the rarest, underlying disease's genetic "richesse," complexity and heterogeneity. Time-to-death differences may relate to diverse IPF pathogenetic mechanisms implicating "personalized" medical care driven by genotypes in the near future., (© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel.)