Search

Ángela María Giraldo-Montoya,1,2,&ast; Carlos A Torres-Duque,1,3,&ast; Luis F Giraldo-Cadavid,4,5 Maria E Laucho-Contreras,1 Angélica González-Flórez,1 Ana María Santos,3 Eduardo A Tuta-Quintero,1,5 Bartolomé R Celli,6 Mauricio González-García1,7 1CINEUMO, Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 2School of Medicine, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia; 3Biosciences Doctoral, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia; 4Medical Department, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 5Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia; 6Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 7School of Medicine, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Carlos A Torres-Duque, Research Department, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia, Biosciences Doctoral, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia, Email ctorres@neumologica.orgIntroduction: There is a need to better understand the etiotypes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) beyond the tobacco-smoke (TS-COPD). Wood smoke COPD (WS-COPD) is characterized by greater airway compromise, milder emphysema, and slower rate of lung function decline than TS-COPD. However, it is unclear if these two etiotypes of COPD have differences in sputum biomarker concentrations. Objective was to compare sputum levels of selected sputum biomarkers between WS-COPD and TS-COPD, and healthy controls.Methods: Eighty-eight women (69± 12 years) were recruited and classified into: WS-COPD (n=31), TS-COPD (n=29) and controls (n=28). Using ELISA, we determined induced sputum levels of metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), chemokine ligand 5 (CCL5), interleukin-8 (IL-8), chemokine ligand 16 (CCL16/HCC-4) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-1). Differences were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney-U tests and correlation between airflow limitation and biomarkers by Spearman’s test.Results: At similar degree of airflow obstruction, anthropometrics and medications use, the level of sputum CCL5 was higher in TS-COPD than WS-COPD (p=0.03) without differences in MMP-9, IL-8, CCL16/HCC-4, and VEGF-1. Women with WS-COPD and TS-COPD showed significantly higher sputum levels of MMP-9, IL-8 and CCL5 compared with controls (p< 0.001). FEV1% predicted correlated negatively with levels of MMP-9 (rho:-0.26; P=0.016), CCL5 (rho:-0.37; P=0.001), IL-8 (rho:-0.42; P< 0.001) and VEGF (rho:-0.22; P=0.04).Conclusion: While sputum concentrations of MMP-9, IL-8, and CCL5 were higher in COPD women compared with controls, women with TS-COPD had higher levels of CCL5 compared with those with WS-COPD. Whether this finding relates to differences in pathobiological pathways remains to be determined.Keywords: COPD, wood smoke, biomass fuels, tobacco smoke, biomarkers, sputum, cytokines

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

Nadia Juliana Proaños,1,2 Mauricio González-García,1,2 Dayan Crispín-Cruz,1 Abraham Ali-Munive,1,2 Juan Carlos Villar,3 Carlos A Torres-Duque,1,2 Alejandro Casas1,2 1Programa AIREPOC y CINEUMO, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 2Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia; 3Centro de Investigaciones, Fundación Cardioinfantil - Instituto de Cardiología, Bogotá, ColombiaCorrespondence: Carlos A Torres-Duque, Email ctorres@neumologica.orgPurpose: To compare the level of knowledge in vaccination against influenza and pneumococcus of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are managed in an Integrated Care Program (ICP) with those who receive usual care (UC).Methods: A telephone survey of patients diagnosed with COPD registered in public care networks or private institutions was done. A descriptive and comparative analysis of the characteristics of the ICP and UC groups was carried out. The relationship between belonging to an ICP and the level of knowledge about vaccination was evaluated using Propensity Score Matching (PSM) and multivariate logistic and ordinal regression models.Results: Of 674 study participants, 27.2% were from the ICP group. ICP patients were older, more frequently men, from a higher socioeconomic stratum and a higher educational level (p< 0.05). 75.5% of the patients in the ICP group had a high level of vaccination knowledge compared to 42.7% in the UC group (p< 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, adjusting for sociodemographic variables, years of COPD diagnosis, and comorbidities, belonging to the ICP was associated with a higher probability of answering questions about vaccination correctly and having a high level of knowledge (OR 3.397, IC 95% 2.058– 5.608, p< 0.001).Conclusion: Patients with COPD managed in an ICP have a higher level of knowledge in vaccination against influenza and pneumococcus, compared to patients in usual care.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, knowledge, patient education, care patient

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

Laura Naranjo,1 Carlos A Torres-Duque,2 Daniel Colodenco,3 Gustavo Lopardo,4 Pablo Rodriguez,5 Aldo Agra de Albuquerque-Neto,6 Rafael J Hernandez-Zenteno,7 Luis Septien,8 Reynaldo Chandler,9 Eduardo Ortega-Barria,1 Patricia Juliao,1 Adriana Guzman-Holst1 1GSK, Panama City, Panama; 2Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogota, Colombia; 3Director of Pneumology Specialization Course, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 4FUNCEI-Bernardo Houssay Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 5Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, CEMIC, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 6Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit, Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil; 7MSc Head of COPD Clinic at National Institute of Respiratory Diseases, Mexico City, Mexico; 8Pulmonary and Critical Care Division, National Institute of Nutrition Salvador Zubiran, Mexico City, Mexico; 9Education and Investigation Coordination Unit, San Miguel Arcangel Hospital, Ministry of Health, Panama City, PanamaCorrespondence: Adriana Guzman-Holst; Patricia JuliaoGSK, Ciudad Del Saber, Building 230, Panama City, PanamaTel +507 2632204Email adriana.x.guzman@gsk.com; patricia.d.juliao@gsk.comBackground: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable and usually progressive lung disease that affects millions of people worldwide and is the sixth leading cause of death in the Americas. Viral and bacterial respiratory tract infections and air pollution may cause acute exacerbations of COPD (AE-COPD) ranging from mild, moderate to severe. The greatest proportion of the overall COPD burden on the health system is due to disease exacerbations. There is limited evidence regarding the etiology and burden of AE-COPD in Latin America (LATAM).Methods: To respond to this gap in evidence, an Advisory Board with regional pneumologists and infectious disease experts was convened in September 2018 in Panama City, Panama, to: 1) review the burden of AE-COPD in LATAM; 2) evaluate the etiology of AE-COPD in LATAM; and 3) assess and compare the local/regional guidelines to confirm the etiology, characterize, and manage AE-COPD.Results: The results of the meeting showed that there is a high prevalence of AE-COPD in LATAM countries, limited evidence on etiology data, and discrepancies in the case definitions and symptomology (ie, severity) classifications used in LATAM.Conclusion: The Advisory Board discussions further resulted in recommendations for future research on the impact on the epidemiology and burden of disease, on establishing standardized AE-COPD case definition guidelines, and on studying the etiology of both moderate and severe AE-COPD cases.Keywords: COPD, exacerbations, diagnosis, epidemiology, etiology, consensus

Mauricio González-García,1,2 Carlos A Torres-Duque,1,2 Adriana Bustos,1 Claudia Jaramillo,1 Darío Maldonado1,21Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, 2Universidad de la Sabana, Bogotá, ColombiaPurpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) related to wood smoke exposure is characterized by important inflammation of the central and peripheral airways without significant emphysema. The objective of this study is to describe the bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) level in women with COPD related to wood smoke exposure and to compare it with the BHR in women with COPD related to tobacco smoking.Materials and methods: Two groups of women with stable COPD were studied: (1) wood smoke exposed (WS-COPD); and (2) tobacco smoke exposed (TS-COPD). A methacholine challenge test (MCT) was performed in all patients according to American Thoracic Society criteria. BHR levels were compared using the methacholine concentration, which caused a 20% fall in the FEV1 (PC20).Results: Thirty-one patients, 19 with WS-COPD and 12 with TS-COPD, were included. There were no significant differences between the groups in baseline FVC, FEV1, IC, FEF25–75, and FEF25–75/FVC. All 31 patients had a positive MCT (PC20 ,

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of COPD in Colombia is unknown. This study aimed to investigate COPD prevalence in five Colombian cities and measure the association between COPD and altitude. METHODS: A cross-sectional design and a random, multistage, cluster-sampling strategy were used to provide representative samples of adults aged >or= 40 years. Each participant was interviewed (validated Spanish version of the Ferris Respiratory Questionnaire) and performed spirometry before and after 200 microg of inhaled salbutamol, using a portable spirometer according to American Thoracic Society recommendations. COPD definitions were as follows: (1) spirometric: fixed ratio (primary definition): FEV1/FVC < 70% after bronchodilator; (2) medical: a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or COPD made by a physician; (3) clinical: cough and phlegm >or= 3 months every year during >or= 2 consecutive years (chronic bronchitis). Analysis was performed using statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 5,539 orsubjects were included. The overall COPD prevalence using the primary definition (spirometric) was 8.9%, ranging from 6.2% in Barranquilla to 13.5% in Medellín. The prevalence measured by the spirometric definition was higher than medical (2.8%) and clinical (3.2%) definitions. After the logistic regression analysis, the factors related with COPD were age >or= 60 years, male gender, history of tuberculosis, smoking, wood smoke exposure >or= 10 years, and very low education level. There was a nonsignificant tendency toward larger prevalence with higher altitude. CONCLUSION: COPD is an important health burden in Colombia. Additional studies are needed to establish the real influence of altitude on COPD prevalence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Rationale: There is no consensus on criteria to include in an asthma remission definition in real life. Factors associated with achieving remission after biologic initiation remain poorly understood. Objectives: To quantify the proportion of adults with severe asthma achieving multidomain-defined remission after biologic initiation and identify prebiologic characteristics associated with achieving remission that may be used to predict it. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 23 countries from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1 year before and after biologic initiation. A priori- defined remission cutoffs were: 0 exacerbations/yr, no long-term oral corticosteroid (LTOCS), partly/well-controlled asthma, and percent predicted FEV 1  ⩾ 80%. Remission was defined using two (exacerbations + LTOCS), three (+control or +lung function), and four of these domains. The association between prebiologic characteristics and postbiologic remission was assessed by multivariable analysis. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 50.2%, 33.5%, 25.8%, and 20.3% of patients met criteria for two-, three- (+control), three- (+lung function), and four-domain remission, respectively. The odds of achieving four-domain remission decreased by 15% for every additional 10 years of asthma duration (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.00). The odds of remission increased in those with fewer exacerbations per year, lower LTOCS daily dose, better control, and better lung function before biologic initiation. Conclusions: One in five patients achieved four-domain remission within 1 year of biologic initiation. Patients with less severe impairment and shorter asthma duration at initiation had a greater chance of achieving remission after biologic treatment, indicating that biologic treatment should not be delayed if remission is the goal.

Background: Biologic effectiveness is often assessed as response, a term that eludes consistent definition. Identifying those most likely to respond in real-life has proven challenging., Objective: To explore definitions of biologic responders in adults with severe asthma and investigate patient characteristics associated with biologic response., Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 21 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry. Changes in four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1-year period before and after biologic initiation in patients with a predefined level of prebiologic impairment. Responder cutoffs were 50% or greater reduction in exacerbation rate, 50% or greater reduction in long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose, improvement in one or more category in asthma control, and 100 mL or greater improvement in FEV 1 . Responders were defined using single and multiple domains. The association between prebiologic characteristics and postbiologic initiation response was examined by multivariable analysis., Results: A total of 2,210 patients were included. Responder rate ranged from 80.7% (n = 566 of 701) for exacerbation response to 10.6% (n = 9 of 85) for a four-domain response. Many responders still exhibited significant impairment after biologic initiation: 46.7% (n = 206 of 441) of asthma control responders with uncontrolled asthma before the biologic still had incompletely controlled disease postbiologic initiation. Predictors of response were outcome-dependent. Lung function responders were more likely to have higher prebiologic FeNO (odds ratio = 1.20 for every 25-parts per billion increase), and shorter asthma duration (odds ratio = 0.81 for every 10-year increase in duration). Higher blood eosinophil count and the presence of type 2-related comorbidities were positively associated with higher odds of meeting long-term oral corticosteroid, control, and lung function responder criteria., Conclusions: Our findings underscore the multimodal nature of response, showing that many responders experience residual symptoms after biologic initiation and that predictors of response vary according to the outcome assessed., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: 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.)

Background: Cost-effectiveness studies evaluate health technologies and help choose treatments. The current study compared dupilumab to omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab in Colombian adults with severe uncontrolled type 2 asthma., Methods: Over a 5-year period, a Markov model was utilized to assess the costs of biological treatments and management of exacerbations, comparing various doses of exacerbations, comparing various doses of dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab as add-on treatments. It included a 5% annual discount rate per local HTA, and set willingness-to-pay at three times GDP per capita per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in Colombia., Results: Dupilumab (200 mg) exhibited greater QALYs and reduced overall costs compared to mepolizumab (100 mg), benralizumab (30 mg), and omalizumab (450 mg and 600 mg), with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALYgained being -$5.429, -$6.269, -$196.567 and -$991.007, respectively. Dupilumab had greater QALYs and costs versus omalizumab 300 mg (ICERof $200.653 per QALY, above the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 × GDP per capita). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with base case results., Conclusions: Dupilumab 200 mg was strongly dominant versus omalizumab 450 mg and 600 mg, mepolizumab 100 mg, and benralizumab 30 mg; however, cost-effectiveness was not demonstrated versus omalizumab 300 mg. These results could assist healthcare professionals in choosing an appropriate biologic for treating severe type 2 asthma.

Introduction: The objective of this Delphi study was to understand and assess the level of consensus among respiratory experts on the clinical application of GOLD 2023 recommendations in management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Methods: The study comprised two online surveys and a participant meeting with 34 respiratory experts from 16 countries. Responses of 73 questions were recorded using a Likert scale ranging from 0 (disagreement) to 9 (agreement). The consensus threshold was 75%., Results: Survey 1 and survey 2 had 34 and 32 participants, respectively; and 25 attended the participant meeting. Consensus was reached on survey 1: 28/42; survey 2: 18/30 close-ended questions. A consensus was reached on the clinical relevance of most updates in definitions and diagnosis of COPD. Mixed results for the treatment recommendations by GOLD were noted: 74% agreed with the recommendation to initiate treatment with dual bronchodilators for group E patients; 63% agreed for including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β 2 agonist(LABA)/ Long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA) as a treatment option for GOLD B patients. Also, consensus lacked on removing ICS + LABA as an initial therapeutic option, in countries with challenges in access to other treatment option;. 88% agreed that they use GOLD recommendations in their daily clinical practice., Conclusions: This Delphi study demonstrated a high level of consensus regarding key concepts of GOLD 2023 report, with most participants favoring recent updates in definitions, diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. More evidence on the etiotype based management and treatment options for group B and E are required which could further strengthen clinical application of the GOLD report., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: There is a lack of information on house dust mite (HDM) sensitization and phenotype distribution in patients with severe asthma (SA) living permanently at high-altitude (HA) in tropical regions, which may be different., Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize adults with SA in a tropical high altitude city (2,640 m): Bogotá, Colombia., Material and Methods: This observational cross-sectional study included severe asthmatic outpatients ( n  = 129) referred to the ASMAIRE program of the Fundación Neumológica Colombiana in Bogotá (2,640 m). Clinical history, spirometry, total IgE, blood eosinophils, and skin prick test (SPT), including HDM allergens, were performed. Phenotype definitions: Allergic/atopic (AA): IgE ≥100 IU/mL and/or at least one positive SPT; eosinophilic (EOS): blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL; type 2-high: AA and/or EOS phenotype; type 2-low: non-AA/non-EOS phenotype (IgE <100 IU/mL, negative SPT, and blood eosinophils <300 cells/µL)., Results: A total of 129 adults with SA were included, 79.8% female. Phenotype distribution: AA: 61.2%; EOS: 37.2%; type 2-high: 72.1%; type 2-low: 27.9%. Among AA patients, HDM sensitization was present in 87% and 34.9% were non-eosinophilic. There was a significant overlap between the phenotypes., Conclusions: In contrast to non-tropical high-altitude regions, we found a high frequency of HDM sensitization in patients with AA phenotype living in a tropical high-altitude city. We also found a discrete lower frequency of EOS phenotype with no other significant differences in the phenotypic distribution compared to that described at low altitudes. We propose that tropical location may modify the effect of high altitude on HDM concentrations and allergenicity.

Background: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2023 highlights the need to explore aetiotypes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) beyond the tobacco-smoking COPD. Exposure to wood smoke (WS) is a risk factor for COPD in women, but the effect of the combined exposure to tobacco smoke (TS) in the general population and among COPD patients, and the characteristics of WS-COPD are unclear., Method: This was an analysis of data from PREPOCOL (Prevalence of COPD in Five Colombian Cities Situated at Low, Medium, and High Altitude), a random cross-sectional population-based study ( n = 5,539) focusing on the effect of combined WS and TS exposure and WS-COPD characterisation., Results: Prevalence of COPD was significantly higher in those exposed to both WS and TS (16.0%) than in those exposed to WS (6.7%) or TS (7.8%) only ( P < 0.001). Exposure to WS was associated with COPD in men (OR 1.53, P = 0.017). WS-COPD individuals were more frequently female, older, shorter and had higher forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV 1 ) (all P < 0.05). Those exposed to both WS and TS had more symptoms and worse airflow limitation ( P < 0.001)., Conclusions: This was the first random population-based study showing that WS is an associated risk factor for COPD also in men, and that people exposed to both WS and TS have a significantly higher prevalence of COPD. Similarly, COPD subjects exposed to both types of smoke have more symptoms and greater airflow obstruction. This suggests an additive effect of WS and TS., (© 2024 The Authors.)

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.

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: 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.)

Objective: Data on severe asthma phenotypes in Latin America are lacking. The PREPARE study describes the prevalence of certain determinants of severe asthma among patients in 5 Latin American countries with blood eosinophil counts (BEC) ≥300 cells/mm 3 and serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) concentrations >100 IU/mL., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, information on demographics, disease characteristics, and asthma treatments were extracted from the existing medical records of patients aged ≥12 years attending centers specialized in severe asthma management. Medical record data were transcribed onto electronic case report forms. Blood eosinophil counts and IgE concentrations were assayed from specimens obtained at study visit. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics., Results: Data from 461 patients with severe asthma (mean age, 50.5 years) were analyzed. Most patients were female (73%), had a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m 2 (77%), and received full healthcare reimbursement (63%). In the previous 12 months, 52% of patients experienced ≥1 severe exacerbation and 44% received oral corticosteroid burst therapy. Blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/mm 3 and ≥150 cells/mm 3 were reported in 44% and 76% of patients, respectively. In 58% of patients, serum IgE concentrations exceeded 100 IU/mL. Uncontrolled asthma was documented in 50% ( n  = 230) of patients., Conclusions: The PREPARE study provides useful insights about the prevalence of eosinophilic and atopic phenotypes in patients with severe asthma in Latin America, thereby paving the way for a more personalized approach to managing severe asthma. Notwithstanding the treatment at specialized medical centers, disease burden remained high in this study population.

Introduction: After COVID-19, functional and tomographic lung alterations may occur, but there are no studies at high altitude where, due to lower barometric pressure, there are lower levels of arterial oxygen pressure and saturation in both normal subjects and patients with respiratory disease. In this study, we evaluated the computed tomographic (CT), clinical, and functional involvement at 3 and 6 months post-hospitalization in survivors with moderate-severe COVID-19, as well the risk factors associated with abnormal lung computed tomography (ALCT) at 6 months of follow-up., Materials and Methods: Prospective cohort, after hospitalization for COVID-19, of patients older than 18 years residing at high altitude. Follow-up at 3 and 6 months with lung CT, spirometry, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), six-minute walk test (6MWT), and oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ). Comparisons between ALCT and normal lung computed tomography (NLCT) groups with X 2 and Mann-Whitney U test, and paired test for changes between 3 and 6 months. A multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the variables associated with ALCT at 6-month follow-up., Results: We included 158 patients, 22.2% hospitalized in intensive care unit (ICU), 92.4% with typical COVID CT scan (peripheral, bilateral, or multifocal ground glass, with or without consolidation or findings of organizing pneumonia), and median hospitalization of 7 days. At 6 months, 53 patients (33.5%) had ALCT. There were no differences between ALCT and NLCT groups in symptoms or comorbidities on admission. ALCT patients were older and more frequently men, smokers and hospitalized in ICU. At 3 months, ALCT patients had more frequently a reduced forced vital capacity (< 80%), and lower meters walked (6MWT) and SpO 2 . At 6 months, all patients improved lung function with no differences between groups, but there were more dyspnea and lower exercise SpO 2 in ALCT group. The variables associated with ALCT at 6 months were age, sex, ICU stay, and typical CT scan., Conclusion: At 6-month follow-up, 33.5% of patients with moderate and severe COVID had ALCT. These patients had more dyspnea and lower SpO 2 in exercise. Regardless of the persistence of tomographic abnormalities, lung function and 6MWT improved. We identified the variables associated with ALCT., 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 Rincon-Alvarez, Gonzalez-Garcia, Ali-Munive, Casas, Proaños, Giraldo-Cadavid, Moreno, Pérez, Rubiano, Cogollo, Parada-Tovar and Torres-Duque.)

Background: The allergic phenotype is responsible for more than 50% of severe asthma cases. In a stepwise approach, add-on treatments such as anti-IgE are used for severe allergic asthma (SAA). This study was aimed to describe the real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in adult and pediatric patients with SAA in Colombia., Methods: This was an observational, non-interventional, retrospective study. Data from patients with SAA that received at least one month of treatment with omalizumab was obtained from medical records at eight sites in Colombia. Time-zero (t - 0) was defined as the date of initiation of omalizumab, and data was gathered for a 12-month period before t - 0 and a 12-month period after t - 0. Clinical outcomes, including exacerbations, were assessed at 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness of omalizumab was evaluated in terms of the reduction of the risk of exacerbations (annualized rate)., Results: We included 143 patients with SAA. There was a decrease of 72.4% of the annualized rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations during the year after omalizumab (from 1.74 before to 0.48 after) with a substantial reduction of the risk of exacerbations by 56.7% (RR [95% CI] 0.43 [0.30-0.63] p < 0,001)., Conclusion: The use of omalizumab in Colombia as a treatment for SAA notably reduced the risk of clinically significant exacerbations. This study is the first to evaluate omalizumab real-life effectiveness in pediatric and adult patients in the country., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate COVID-19 knowledge, attitudes, and practices among health care workers (HCWs) practicing in Latin American countries during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: This was a multinational cross-sectional survey study, using an online self-administered questionnaire. The final version of the questionnaire comprised 40 questions, organized in five sections: demographic and professional characteristics; COVID-19 knowledge; attitudes toward COVID-19; COVID-19 practices; and institutional resources., Results: The study involved 251 HCWs from 19 Latin American countries who agreed to participate. In our sample, 77% of HCWs participated in some sort of institutional training on COVID-19, and 43% had a low COVID-19 knowledge score. COVID-19 knowledge was associated with the type of health center (public/private), availability of institutional training, and sources of information about COVID-19. Concerns about not providing adequate care were reported by 60% of the participants. The most commonly used ventilatory strategies were protective mechanical ventilation, alveolar recruitment maneuvers, and prone positioning, and the use of drugs to treat COVID-19 was mainly based on institutional protocols., Conclusions: In this multinational study in Latin America, almost half of HCWs had a low COVID-19 knowledge score, and the level of knowledge was associated with the type of institution, participation in institutional training, and information sources. HCWs considered that COVID-19 was very relevant, and more than half were concerned about not providing adequate care to 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.)

Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is associated with decreased exercise tolerance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but in the altitude the response to exercise in those patients is unknown. Our objective was to compare exercise capacity, gas exchange and ventilatory alterations between COPD patients with PH (COPD-PH) and without PH (COPD-nonPH) residents at high altitude (2640 m)., Methods: One hundred thirty-two COPD-nonPH, 82 COPD-PH, and 47 controls were included. Dyspnea by Borg scale, oxygen consumption (VO 2 ), work rate (WR), ventilatory equivalents (VE/VCO 2 ), dead space to tidal volume ratio (V D /V T ), alveolar-arterial oxygen tension gradient (AaPO 2 ), and arterial-end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure gradient (Pa-ETCO 2 ) were measurement during a cardiopulmonary exercise test. For comparison of variables between groups, Kruskal-Wallis or one-way ANOVA tests were used, and stepwise regression analysis to test the association between PH and exercise capacity., Results: All COPD patients had a lower exercise capacity and higher PaCO 2 , A-aPO 2 and V D /V T than controls. The VO 2 % predicted (61.3 ± 20.6 vs 75.3 ± 17.9; p < 0.001) and WR % predicted (65.3 ± 17.9 vs 75.3 ± 17.9; p < 0.001) were lower in COPD-PH than in COPD-nonPH. At peak exercise, dyspnea was higher in COPD-PH ( p = 0.011). During exercise, in COPD-PH, the PaO 2 was lower ( p < 0.001), and AaPO 2 ( p < 0.001), Pa-ETCO 2 ( p = 0.033), VE/VCO 2 ( p = 0.019), and V D /V T ( p = 0.007) were higher than in COPD-nonPH. In the multivariate analysis, PH was significantly associated with lower peak VO 2 and WR ( p < 0.001)., Conclusion: In COPD patients residing at high altitude, the presence of PH was an independent factor related to the exercise capacity. Also, in COPD-PH patients there were more dyspnea and alterations in gas exchange during the exercise than in those without PH.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, but the mechanisms are unclear. Besides, patients with severe COVID-19 have been reported to have increased levels of several immune mediators., Methods: Ninety-two proteins were quantified in 315 plasma samples from 118 asthmatics, 99 COPD patients and 98 healthy controls (age 40-90 years), who were recruited in Colombia before the COVID-19 pandemic. Protein levels were compared between each disease group and healthy controls. Significant proteins were compared to the gene signatures of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported in the "COVID-19 Drug and Gene Set Library" and with experimentally tested protein biomarkers of severe COVID-19., Results: Forty-one plasma proteins showed differences between patients and controls. Asthmatic patients have increased levels in IL-6 while COPD patients have a broader systemic inflammatory dysregulation driven by HGF, OPG, and several chemokines (CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11, CX3CL1, CXCL1, MCP-3, MCP-4, CCL3, CCL4 and CCL11). These proteins are involved in chemokine signaling pathways related with response to viral infections and some, were found up-regulated upon SARS-CoV-2 experimental infection of Calu-3 cells as reported in the COVID-19 Related Gene Sets database. An increase of HPG, CXCL9, CXCL10, IL-6, MCP-3, TNF and EN-RAGE has also been experimentally detected in patients with severe COVID-19., Conclusions: COPD patients have altered levels of plasma proteins that have been reported increased in patients with severe COVID-19. Our study suggests that COPD patients have a systemic dysregulation in chemokine networks (including HGF and CXCL9) that could make them more susceptible to severe COVID-19. Also, that IL-6 levels are increased in some asthmatic patients (especially in females) and this may influence their response to COVID-19. The findings in this study depict a novel panel of inflammatory plasma proteins in COPD patients that may potentially associate with increased susceptibility to severe COVID-19 and might be useful as a biomarker signature after future experimental validation., 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 © 2021 Acevedo, Escamilla-Gil, Espinoza, Regino, Ramírez, Florez de Arco, Dennis, Torres-Duque and Caraballo.)

Purpose: Arterial blood gases (ABG) are influenced by the altitude above sea level, age and sex. Most studies have been conducted at sea level and in small populations ascending to or residents at very high altitudes. Our objective was to evaluate the ventilation and ABG by age and sex in an Andean population resident at high altitude (2640 m)., Methods: Analytical cross-sectional study was done in healthy volunteers. ABG and minute ventilation (VE) were measured. T test and ANOVA for differences by sex and age, and Pearson test for correlations between age, VE and ABG were performed., Results: We included 374 adults, 55% women from 18 to 83 years and hemoglobin of 15.7 ± 1.6 g/dl. There was a significant decrease in PaO 2 and SaO 2 and an increase in P(A - a)O 2 with age (p < 0.001). Unlike men, with age women had a significant increase in PaCO 2 and a higher decrease in PaO 2 . The correlations between age, the decrease in PaO 2 and the increase in PaCO 2 were greater in women than in men. The VE adjusted to body surface area decreased with age, but this correlation was significantly higher in women., Conclusions: In this study, with a considerable number of healthy adults living at high altitude (2640 m), we established the physiological impact of altitude, aging and gender in ABG. The PaO 2 and PaCO 2 were significantly lower and the hemoglobin values slightly higher than described at sea level. In addition to PaO 2 decline with age, there was an age-related increase in PaCO 2 in women, associated with a greater reduction of VE.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of an integrated care program (ASMAIRE Infantil Program [PAI]) for children with asthma compared with standard of care., Methods: A decision-analytic model was used to compare an integrated care program compared to the standard of care in children with asthma in Bogota, Colombia. Baseline characteristics of the patients were established according to the distribution of patients in the PAI database. Other inputs were obtained from published meta-analysis, local registries, medical bills, general mortality data, and expert opinion. Costs were presented in 2017 Colombian pesos. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted by 5% per year. Incremental cost-utility ratios were presented for PAI compared with standard of care. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model robustness to parameter uncertainty., Results: The model predicted that patients that are part of the PAI would accrue more QALYs than patients on standard of care. The incremental results suggest that the PAI is a cost-effective treatment (incremental cost-utility ratio of Colombian pesos $33 753 817/QALY) compared with standard of care. Sensitivity analyses suggest that results are most sensitive to cost of care (with and without PAI) and costs of severe exacerbation. However, the PAI is cost-effective irrespective of variation in any of the input parameters., Conclusion: Our model predicted that an integrated intervention for the management of asthma in pediatric patients improves QALYs, reduces number of disease related exacerbations compared to standard therapy and is cost-effective for the long-term control of the disease in Colombia., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

This document on COPD from the Latin American Chest Association (ALAT-2019) uses PICO methodology to analyze new evidence on inhaled medication and answer clinical questions. The following key points emerged from this analysis: 1) evidence is lacking on the comparison of short-acting vs. long-acting bronchodilators in patients with mild COPD; patients with moderate-to-severe COPD obtain greater benefit from long-acting bronchodilators; 2) the benefits of monotherapy with long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) and combined therapy with long-acting β 2 -agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) are similar, although the latter is associated with a greater risk of pneumonia; 3) LABA/LAMA offer greater benefits in terms of lung function and risk of exacerbation than LABA/ICS (the latter involve an increased risk of pneumonia), 4) LAMA/LABA/ICS have greater therapeutic benefits than LABA/LAMA on the risk of moderate-severe exacerbations. With regard to the role of eosinophils in guiding the use of ICS, ICS withdrawal must be considered when the initial indication was wrong or no response is elicited, in patients with side effects such as pneumonia, and in patients with a low risk of exacerbation and an eosinophil blood count of <300 cells/μl. All this evidence, categorized according to the severity of the obstruction, symptoms, and risk of exacerbations, has been used to generate an algorithm for the use of inhaled medication in COPD., (Copyright © 2019 SEPAR. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have a huge impact on lung function, quality of life and mortality of patients. Emergency Department visits and hospitalizations due to exacerbations cause a significant economic burden on the health system., Objective: To describe the differences in the number of emergency visits and hospitalizations due to exacerbations of COPD among patients included in two models of care of the same institution., Materials and Methods: A historical cohort study in which COPD patients who are users of two models of care were included: COPD integrated care program (CICP) and general consultation of pulmonology (GCP). The first model, unlike the second one, offers additional educational activities, 24/7 telephone service, and priority consultations. The number of emergency visits and hospitalizations due to COPD exacerbations in patients who had completed at least one year of follow-up was evaluated. The multivariable Poisson regression model was used for calculating the incidence rate (IR) and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) with an adjustment for confounding factors., Results: We included 316 COPD patients (166 from the CICP and 150 from the GCP). During the year of follow-up, the CICP patients had 50% fewer emergency visits and hospitalizations than patients from the GCP (IRR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.29-0.87, p=0.014)., Conclusions: COPD patients in the CICP had fewer emergency visits and hospitalizations due to exacerbations. Prospective clinical studies are required to confirm the results and to evaluate the factors that contribute to the differences.

The objective of the article was to establish the prevalence, underdiagnosis, and risk factors of chronic bronchitis (CB) in a general population in five Colombian cities. Cross-sectional study using a probabilistic sampling technique in five Colombian cities was adopted. The CB definition was "cough and expectoration for three or more months per year for at least two consecutive years." Underdiagnosis was considered in subjects with clinical definition without previous medical diagnosis. Univariate χ 2 or Student's t-test and logistic regression analysis were used. The study included 5539 subjects. The prevalence was 5.5%, the underdiagnosis 50.3%, and 33.7% of the cases were in nonsmokers (53.6% in women vs. 16.9% in men, p < 0.001). The adjusted risk factors were living in Bogota, current smoking, male, age ≥ 64 years, low education, indoor wood smoke exposure, and occupational exposure to vapors, gases, dust, and fumes. CB is a common disease among adults in Colombia. The underdiagnosis was high and there were a large proportion of cases in nonsmokers, particularly in women. Our findings support the association of CB with indoor wood smoke and occupational exposures.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex and heterogeneous entity that may result from different causative agents and risk factors and may follow diverse clinical courses, including COPD secondary to biomass smoke exposure. At present, this phenotype is becoming more important for two reasons: first, because at least almost half of the world's population is exposed to biomass smoke, and second, because the possibility of it being diagnosed is increasing. Biomass smoke exposure COPD affects primarily women and is related with insults to the airways occurred during early life. Although constituents of biomass smoke and tobacco smoke are similar, the physiopathological changes they induce differ depending not only on the chemical composition (related with the type of fuel used) but also on the particle size and the inhalation pattern. Evidence has shown that biomass smoke exposure affects the airway, predominantly the small airways causing anthracofibrosis and peribronchiolar fibrosis changes that will clinically translate into chronic bronchitis symptoms, with a high impact on the quality of life. In this review, we focus especially on the main epidemiological and clinical differences between COPD secondary to biomass exposure and COPD caused by tobacco exposure., (Copyright: © 2019 SecretarÍa de Salud.)

Background: Some studies, mainly in Europe, have shown a low level of sensitization to house dust mite (HDM) allergens at high altitude (HA). Differently, some others in tropical countries have shown a higher level. The aim of this study was to evaluate allergens sensitization, including HDM, in children with severe asthma (SA), residents at HA in a tropical middle-income developing country., Methods: Observational, analytical, cross-sectional study in children aged 6-15 years old with SA at HA (2640 m). Skin prick tests (SPT), serum IgE, exhaled fraction of nitric oxide (FE NO ), spirometry, and asthma questionnaire (ACT) were performed. Associations were explored by Pearson or Spearman coefficients., Results: We included 61 children. Most patients were male (61.3%), median age: 10 years (Interquartile range [IQR]: 8-12), median BMI: 17 kg/m 2 (IQR: 16-20); Median of positive SPT: 2 (IQR: 2-3). At least one SPT was positive in 88.7% of patients and 87.9% were positive for at least one HDM. Serum IgE: 348 UI/mL (IQR: 154-760) and FE NO : 22 ppb (IQR: 9-41). Prebronchodilator values were (% predicted): FVC: 109.7% (±15.5%), FEV 1 : 98.4% (±16.3); FEV 1 /FVC: 82% (±8%). SPT were inversely correlated with the FEV 1 /FVC (Rho: -0.34; 95% CI: -0.55 a -0.09; P = 0.008)., Conclusions: These children with SA living at HA in a tropical middle-income developing country have a high prevalence of HDM sensitization. One explanation for this might be that tropical conditions, such as temperature and humidity, could modify the effect of the altitude on asthma., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Tuberculosis (TB) in migrants represents an important clinical and public health threat, particularly in low TB incidence countries. The current review is aimed to assess issues related to screening and treatment of migrants with latent TB infection or TB disease., (Copyright © 2017 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory and neurodegenerative demyelinating disease. Current treatment of multiple sclerosis focuses on the use of immunomodulatory, immunosuppressant, and selective immunosuppressant agents. Some of these medications may result in high risk of opportunistic infections including tuberculosis., Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain consensus from a panel of neurologists, pulmonologists, infectious disease specialists, and epidemiology experts regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of latent tuberculosis in patients with multiple sclerosis., Methods: A panel of experts in multiple sclerosis and tuberculosis was established. The methodological process was performed in three phases: definition of questions, answer using Delphi methodology, and the discussion of questions not agreed., Results: Tuberculosis screening is suggested when multiple sclerosis drugs are prescribed. The recommended tests for latent tuberculosis are tuberculin and interferon gamma release test. When an anti-tuberculosis treatment is indicated, monitoring should be performed to determine liver enzyme values with consideration of age as well as comorbid conditions such as a history of alcoholism, age, obesity, concomitant hepatotoxic drugs, and history of liver disease., Conclusion: Latent tuberculosis should be considered in patients with multiple sclerosis who are going to be treated with immunomodulatory and immunosuppressant medications. Transaminase level monitoring is required on a periodic basis depending on clinical and laboratory characteristics. In addition to the liver impairment, other side effects should be considered when Isoniazid is prescribed.

Background: COPD prevalence is highly variable and geographical altitude has been linked to it, yet with conflicting results. We aimed to investigate this association, considering well known risk factors., Methods: A pooled analysis of individual data from the PREPOCOL-PLATINO-BOLD-EPI-SCAN studies was used to disentangle the population effect of geographical altitude on COPD prevalence. Post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC below the lower limit of normal defined airflow limitation consistent with COPD. High altitude was defined as >1500 m above sea level. Undiagnosed COPD was considered when participants had airflow limitation but did not report a prior diagnosis of COPD., Results: Among 30,874 participants aged 56.1 ± 11.3 years from 44 sites worldwide, 55.8% were women, 49.6% never-smokers, and 12.9% (3978 subjects) were residing above 1500 m. COPD prevalence was significantly lower in participants living at high altitude with a prevalence of 8.5% compared to 9.9%, respectively (p < 0.005). However, known risk factors were significantly less frequent at high altitude. Hence, in the adjusted multivariate analysis, altitude itself had no significant influence on COPD prevalence. Living at high altitude, however, was associated with a significantly increased risk of undiagnosed COPD. Furthermore, subjects with airflow limitation living at high altitude reported significantly less respiratory symptoms compared to subjects residing at lower altitude., Conclusion: Living at high altitude is not associated with a difference in COPD prevalence after accounting for individual risk factors. However, high altitude itself was associated with an increased risk of undiagnosed COPD.