Search

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

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

Johannes Wienker, Kaid Darwiche, Julia Wälscher, Jane Winantea, Michael Hagemann, Erik Büscher, Abhinav Singla, Christian Taube, Rüdiger Karpf-Wissel Department of Pneumology, University Medicine Essen- Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, GermanyCorrespondence: Johannes Wienker, Department of Pneumology, University Medicine Essen- Ruhrlandklinik, Tüschener Weg 40, Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, 45239, Germany, Tel +49 2014334222, Fax +49 2014331988, Email johannes.wienker@stud.uni-due.deBackground: Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBV) can be a successful treatment for end-stage emphysema patients. The reduction of hyperinflation enhances ventilatory mechanics and diaphragm function. Understanding predictors for treatment success is crucial for further improvements.Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the target lobe volume reduction (TLVR) in relation to the ipsilateral lung volume reduction (ILVR), affected by the compensatory expansion of the adjacent lobe, on the outcome after BLVR with valves.Patients and Methods: The volumetric relationship of ILVR% to TLVR%, addressed as Reduction Ratio (R), was recorded in 82 patients and compared to changes in lung function, physical performance and quality of life. A small value for R implies a relatively low volume reduction of the ipsilateral lung (ILVR) compared to the volume reduction of the target lobe (TLVR). Additionally, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for R was calculated.Results: Patients with a smaller Reduction Ratio (R < 0.2) showed minor improvements at the 3 months follow-up compared to patients with R ≥ 0.2 (mean changes of 39 mL (5.8%), – 395 mL (– 4.9%) and 96 mL (7.1%) versus 231 mL (33%), – 1235 mL (– 20%) and 425 mL (29%) in the forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1), residual volume (RV) and inspiratory vital capacity (IVC), respectively, and – 3 m and 0 points versus 20.4 m and – 3.4 points in the 6-minute-walking-distance (6MWD) and COPD assessment test (CAT) score respectively). With a combined value of 0.185, a MCID for R was calculated with established anchors (FEV1, RV, and 6MWD) for emphysema patients.Conclusion: Extensive compensatory hyperinflation of the adjacent non-treated lobe after BLVR results in decreased ILVR, which is responsible for a lack of meaningful improvements in ventilatory mechanics and clinical outcome, despite technically successful lobe volume reduction.Keywords: emphysema, ipsilateral lung volume, reduction ratio, volume shift

Nora Drick,1,* Katrin Milger,2,* Benjamin Seeliger,1 Jan Fuge,1 Stephanie Korn,3 Roland Buhl,3 Maren Schuhmann,4 Felix Herth,4 Benjamin Kendziora,5 Juergen Behr,2 Nikolaus Kneidinger,2 Karl-Christian Bergmann,5 Christian Taube,6 Tobias Welte,1 Hendrik Suhling1 1Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; 2Department of Internal Medicine V, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany; 3Pulmonary Department, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, Germany; 4Department of Pneumology and Critical Care Medicine, Thoraxklinik, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 5Allergy-Centre-Charité, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 6Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Hospital Essen – Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Hendrik Suhling Email suhling.hendrik@mh-hannover.deBackground: Anti-IL-5 antibodies represent an established therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), but some patients show inadequate response. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of a switch to anti-IL-5Rα therapy in patients with inadequate response to anti-IL-5 therapy.Methods: In this retrospective multi-centre, real-life study, we analysed all SEA patients switched from anti-IL-5 to anti-IL-5Rα therapy due to inadequate response or intolerability. Pulmonary function tests, blood gas analyses, asthma control tests (ACT) and oral corticosteroid (OCS) usage were analysed and compared at three timepoints: baseline (BL, before anti-IL-5 therapy), timepoint 1 (T1, under anti-IL-5 therapy) and timepoint 2 (T2, under anti-IL-5Rα therapy).Results: Of 665 patients treated with anti-IL-5 antibodies, 70 were switched to anti-IL-5Rα and 60 were included in the analysis. Median treatment duration was 8 months [IQR 5; 15] for anti-IL-5 and 5 months [IQR 4; 6] for anti-IL-5Rα therapy. FEV1 was 61% of predicted at BL [IQR 41; 74], 61% [IQR 43; 79] at T1 and 68% [IQR 49; 87] at T2 (pT1-T2=0.011). ACT score was 10 [IQR 8; 13], 16 [IQR 10; 19] and 19 [IQR 14; 22], respectively (both p< 0.001). The number of patients requiring OCS was reduced from 41 (BL) to 32 (T1) and 19 (T2) (both p< 0.001). Ten patients discontinued anti-IL-5Rα therapy due to insufficient efficacy (n=7) and adverse events (n=3).Conclusion: Switching from anti-IL-5 to anti-IL-5Rα therapy in patients with inadequate response was associated with significantly improved FEV1, asthma control and OCS reduction.Keywords: benralizumab, eosinophils, mepolizumab, reslizumab, severe asthma

Roland Buhl,1 Michael Dreher,2 Stephanie Korn,1 Christian Taube,3 Christian Stock,4 Christoph M Zehendner,5 Anke Kondla,5 Claus F Vogelmeier6 1Pulmonary Department, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; 2Clinic of Cardiology, Pneumology, Angiology and Internal Medicine Intensive Care, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany; 3Clinic for Pneumonology, University Medicine Essen – Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 4Biostatistics + Data Sciences Corp, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany; 5HP Country Medical Affairs, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany; 6Department of Pneumology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, GermanyCorrespondence: Roland BuhlPulmonary Department, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, Mainz D-55131, GermanyTel +49 6131 17-7271Email roland.buhl@unimedizin-mainz.deBackground: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2020 report recommends that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) suffering from persistent dyspnea, despite long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy, are switched to either a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA combination regimen or LAMA/LABA/ICS triple therapy. However, to date, no studies have investigated the direct switch from LABA/ICS to LAMA/LABA therapy—instead of switching to triple therapy—in a prospective, real-world, non-interventional setting.Methods: EVELUT® (NCT03954132) is an ongoing, prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-interventional study comparing the once-daily fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol (tio/olo) versus any triple therapy (LAMA/LABA/ICS) in patients with COPD who are symptomatic despite LABA/ICS maintenance therapy. Patients with acute or frequent COPD exacerbations are excluded from the study. Participants will receive LABA/ICS maintenance treatment until Visit 1, followed by switching of treatment to tio/olo or LAMA/LABA/ICS. The primary endpoints are changes in modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT®) scores after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints are change in the patients’ general condition according to the Physician’s Global Evaluation score, the proportion of responders with a change in mMRC score of ≥ 1 and in CAT® score of ≥ 2, and patient satisfaction with the inhaler and therapy. The study is expected to enroll approximately 900 patients.Conclusion: EVELUT results are expected to add to the current real-world evidence informing therapeutic decisions for COPD in everyday clinical practice.Trial Registration: The European Union electronic Register of Post-authorisation Studies (EU PAS Register): EUPAS29784; the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM): NIS Study No 7305; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03954132.Keywords: COPD, tiotropium/olodaterol, Spiolto® Respimat®, triple therapy, LAMA/LABA/ICS

Amanda R van Buul,1 Thomas S Wildschut,1,2 Tobias N Bonten,1,2 Marise J Kasteleyn,1,2 Annelies M Slats,1 Niels H Chavannes,2 Christian Taube1,3 1Department of Pulmonology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 2Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 3Department of Pulmonary Medicine, West German Lung Center, Essen University Hospital, Ruhrlandklinik, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany Introduction: An (inter)national systematic approach for patients with asthma COPD referred to secondary care is lacking. Therefore, a novel systematic approach was designed and tested in clinical practice. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of data from the electronic record system of the Leiden University Medical Center. Asthma and COPD patients were included if they were evaluated with a novel systematic approach or if they had a new record for asthma or COPD and received usual care. The novel systematic approach consisted of a predefined diagnostic evaluation combined with an optional internet-based self-management support system. Diagnostic tests, final diagnosis, lifestyle advices, symptoms and individual care plans in the electronic records, number of patients referred back to primary care, and time to referral back to primary care were compared between the systematic approach and usual care groups using t-tests and chi-squared tests. Results: A total of 125 patients were included, of which 22 (21.4%) were evaluated with the systematic approach. Mean (±SD) age was 48.8 (±18.4) years and 59.2% were women. Mean (±SD) number of diagnostic tests was higher in the systematic approach group compared with the usual care group (7.6±1.0 vs 5.5±1.8, P

Amanda R van Buul,1 Marise J Kasteleyn,1,2 Niels H Chavannes,2 Christian Taube1,3 1Department of Pulmonology, 2Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 3Department of Pulmonary Medicine, West German Lung Center, Essen University Hospital, Ruhrlandklinik, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany Purpose: The morning is the most bothersome period for COPD patients. Morning symptom severities in different Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stages are not well studied. Furthermore, factors that are associated with morning symptoms, especially the associations with objectively measured physical activity, are also not well described.Materials and methods: The aim of this cross-sectional observational study was to assess morning symptom severity in GOLD A, B, C and D patients, according to the definitions of the GOLD 2015 statement. Morning symptoms were assessed with the PRO-Morning COPD Symptoms Questionnaire. Differences in morning symptom severity between different COPD stages were assessed with a one-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc analyses. The association between dyspnea severity (assessed with the modified Medical Research Council scale), health status, airflow limitation, lung hyperinflation, anxiety and depression, inflammatory parameters, exacerbations, objectively measured physical activity parameters retrieved from accelerometry and morning symptom severity was evaluated using linear regression analysis.Results: Eighty patients were included (aged 65.6±8.7 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] % predicted 55.1±16.9). Mean (±SD) morning symptom score was 19.7 (±11.7). Morning symptom severity was significantly different between COPD stages: mean (±SD) score in GOLD A was 9.7 (±7.2), in GOLD B 19.8 (±10.7), in GOLD C 8.6 (±9.3) and in GOLD D 23.8 (±11.2) (p