At-home asthma mortality unchanged despite declining mortality in other settings: US death certificate data (2000-2019).

BACKGROUND: Asthma mortality rates in the United States have declined since 1999; however, asthma mortality by place of death has not been comprehensively evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate temporal trends in asthma mortality rates and place of death in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research platform to evaluate deaths with asthma as the underlying cause (2000-2019) among US residents of all ages. Absolute numbers of asthma-related deaths were described by place of death. Counts were applied to US Census Bureau population counts to calculate mortality rates per 100,000 persons. RESULTS: In the 20-year period evaluated, 67,695 asthma deaths were registered in the United States. An overall 32% decline in the asthma mortality rate was observed, from 1.43 to 0.98 per 100,000 persons from 2000 to 2019, respectively. Although asthma mortality rates declined in all medical facility locations, the at-home asthma mortality rate remained stable (0.32 and 0.34 per 100,000 persons in 2000 and 2019, respectively). Consequently, the proportion of at-home asthma deaths increased from 23% in 2000 to 2001 to 36% in 2018 to 2019. The distribution of place of death varied by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. CONCLUSION: Despite an overall decline in asthma mortality in the United States, at-home asthma mortality has remained unchanged. In recent years, more than one-third of asthma deaths have occurred at home. These findings warrant further study and underscore the importance of increased efforts to identify and treat uncontrolled asthma across demographic groups.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000). RESULTS: Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update.

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Innovations in the treatment of anaphylaxis: A review of recent data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current standard of first-line emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is intramuscular (IM) epinephrine, mostly administered through epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) in the outpatient setting. However, undercarriage and underuse of EAIs are common, and delayed epinephrine use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals have expressed a strong desire for small, needle-free devices and products that would offer improved carriage, ease of use, and more convenient, less invasive routes of epinephrine administration. Novel mechanisms of epinephrine administration are under investigation to help address several recognized EAI limitations. This review explores innovative nasal and oral products under investigation for the outpatient emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. FINDINGS: Human studies of epinephrine administered through nasal epinephrine spray, a nasal powder spray, and a sublingual film have been conducted. Data from these studies indicate promising pharmacokinetic results comparable to those of the standard of outpatient emergency care (0.3-mg EAI) and syringe and needle IM epinephrine administration. Several products have shown maximum plasma concentration values higher than those of the 0.3-mg EAI and manual IM injection, although it remains unclear whether this has clinical relevancy in patient outcomes. Generally, these modalities show comparable time to maximum concentrations. Pharmacodynamic changes observed with these products are comparable to or more robust than those seen with EAI and manual IM injection. SUMMARY: Given comparable or superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results and safety of innovative epinephrine therapies to those of current standards of care, US Food and Drug Administration approval of these products may help address numerous barriers that EAIs present. The ease of use and carriage and favorable safety profiles of needle-free treatments may make them an attractive alternative to patients and caregivers, potentially addressing injection fears, needle-based safety risks, and other reasons for lack of or delayed use.

American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred steps 1 to 3 asthma maintenance and reliever therapy and incomplete insurance coverage indicated as main practice hurdle.

BACKGROUND: New asthma guidelines (GINA, 2022; NAEPP EPR-4, 2020) include considerable changes in treatment recommendations, specifically regarding anti-inflammatory rescue and Single MAintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). OBJECTIVE: To explore American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred treatment and perceived hurdles. METHODS: A survey (SurveyMonkey) regarding steps 1 to 3 asthma therapy was e-mailed to American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members. RESULTS: The allergists completed 147 surveys (46% with >20 years of experience; 98% from United States; 29% academic, 75% [also] private practice). In addition, 69% follow the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program and 81% the Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. Of 147 allergists, 117 (80%) indicated correctly what SMART strategy is; 21%/36%/50%/39% would use SMART in step 3 treatment of a below 5-year-old/5- to 11-year-old/12- to 65-year-old/above 65-year-old patient, respectively. In this group, 11% to 14% incorrectly chose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus salmeterol and 9% ICS plus vilanterol for SMART. In a 4-year-old needing step 1 therapy (N = 129), 55% of the respondents would add anti-inflammatory therapy; for step 2 treatment, most would prescribe ICS 100 to 200 µg budesonide equivalent daily; in step 3, 49% would prescribe ICS plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA). In a 7-year-old needing step 1 treatment (N = 134), 40% would prescribe only short-acting beta-agonist; in step 3, 45% would institute SMART strategy, but only 8 of 135 (6%) chose very-low dose ICS plus formoterol (as recommended in Global Initiative for Asthma); most (39%) use low-dose ICS plus formoterol. As for rescue therapy, 59% is now instituting some form of anti-inflammatory rescue. Finally, in a 25-year-old patient (N = 144): in step 1, 39% would prescribe exclusively short-acting beta-agonist; in step 2, 4% only anti-inflammatory rescue and the rest prescribes ICS maintenance; one-third begins SMART strategy at step 2 and 50% in step 3. Major hurdles for prescribing one's preferred strategy included incomplete insurance coverage, insurance not approving more than one canister of ICS-formoterol per month, and cost. CONCLUSION: Asthma therapy varies among physicians, with respondents suggesting underutilization of the recommended anti-inflammatory rescue and SMART therapy. A major hurdle is lack of insurance coverage of medication in line with the guidelines.

Yardstick for managing cough, part 2: In children.

Nationwide statistics in the United States and Australia reveal that cough of undifferentiated duration is the most common complaint for which patients of all ages seek medical care in the ambulatory setting. Management of chronic cough is one of the most common reasons for new patient visits to respiratory specialists. Because symptomatic cough is such a common problem and so much has been learned about how to diagnose and treat cough of all durations but especially chronic cough, this 2-part yardstick has been written to review in a practical way the evidence-based guidelines most of which have been developed from high-quality systematic reviews on how best to manage cough of all durations in adults, adolescents, and children. Chronic cough in children is often benign and self-limiting. Using established and validated protocols and specific pointers (clues in history, findings on examination) can aid the clinician in identifying causes when present and improve outcomes. In this manuscript, part 2 of the 2-part series, we provide evidence-based, expert opinion recommendations on the management of chronic cough in the pediatric patient (<14 years of age).

Yardstick for managing cough, part 1: In adults and adolescent patients older than 14 years of age.

Nationwide statistics in the United States and Australia reveal that cough of undifferentiated duration is the most common complaint for which patients of all ages seek medical care in the ambulatory setting. Management of chronic cough is one of the most common reasons for new patient visits to pulmonologists. Because symptomatic cough is such a common problem and so much has been learned about how to diagnose and treat cough of all durations but especially chronic cough, this 2-part yardstick has been written to review in a practical way the latest evidence-based guidelines most of which have been developed from recent high quality systematic reviews on how best to manage cough of all durations in adults, adolescents, and children. In this manuscript, part 1 of the 2-part series, we provide evidence-based, and expert opinion recommendations on the management of chronic cough in adult and adolescent patients (>14 years of age).

Expert Consensus on SABA Use for Asthma Clinical Decision-Making: A Delphi Approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A modified Delphi process was undertaken to provide a US expert-led consensus to guide clinical action on short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) use. This comprised an online survey (Phase 1), forum discussion and statement development (Phase 2), and statement adjudication (Phase 3). RECENT FINDINGS: In Phase 1 (n = 100 clinicians), 12% routinely provided patients with ≥4 SABA prescriptions/year, 73% solicited SABA use frequency at every patient visit, and 21% did not consult asthma guidelines/expert reports. Phase 3 experts (n = 8) reached consensus (median Likert score, interquartile range) that use of ≥3 SABA canisters/year is associated with increased risk of exacerbation and asthma-related death (5, 4.75-5); SABA use history should be solicited at every patient visit (5, 4.75-5); usage patterns over time, not absolute thresholds, should guide response to SABA overuse (5, 4.5-5). Future asthma guidelines should include clear recommendations regarding SABA usage, using expert-led thresholds for action.

Open-inhaler versus single-inhaler triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist, inhaled corticosteroid, and long-acting ß2-agonist) in asthma patients: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence for the use of open-inhaler (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] plus long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA] with separate add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) versus single-inhaler triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA combination) and the merits of add-on LAMA to ICS/LABA in patients with uncontrolled asthma. DATA SOURCES: Original research articles were identified from PubMed using the search term "triple therapy asthma." Information was also retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov website. STUDY SELECTIONS: Articles detailing the use of add-on LAMA to ICS plus LABA (open-inhaler triple therapy), and closed triple therapy compared with ICS plus LABA dual therapy, addressing patient symptoms, exacerbations, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Open-inhaler triple therapy was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of hospitalizations and emergency department visits and a decrease in ICS dose, oral corticosteroids use, and antibiotics use. Exacerbations and acute respiratory events were also reduced. Single-inhaler triple therapy showed a greater improvement in lung function, asthma control, and health status and was noninferior to open-inhaler triple therapy for Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. Single-inhaler triple therapy may also lead to improved therapy adherence. CONCLUSION: Add-on LAMA to ICS plus LABA (open- or single-inhaler triple therapy) improves the response in patients who remain symptomatic and provides a reasonable alternative to ICS dose escalation in treatment-refractory patients.

Do regional geography and race influence management of chronic spontaneous urticaria?

Chronic spontaneous urticaria is defined as migratory evanescent pruritic blanching wheals that occur with variable frequency for 6 weeks or more, with or without accompanying angioedema. This condition affects approximately 0.1% to 1.4% of persons worldwide. Second-generation H1 antihistamines are the mainstay of management, with refractory cases often managed with an array of options, including H2 antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, glucocorticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents, and omalizumab. However, the degree of practice variation as to what treatments are prescribed is poorly understood, given that clinical care could be driven by patient preferences or lack of clarity as to best practices for refractory cases. We conducted a small, exploratory study of the role of race, ethnicity, and regional geographic distance to specialist care on chronic spontaneous urticaria prescribing practices. A small-area geographic variation in chronic spontaneous urticaria management in a large Chicago-area health care system was identified. Rates of omalizumab use varied by patient zip code, with more omalizumab prescriptions being associated with zip codes closer to the main office of an academic medical center-affiliated allergist-immunologist practice. Higher rates of omalizumab use were associated with White race in regional and patient-level analyses, though the reasons for this race-based finding are not clear.

Single maintenance and reliever therapy in treatment of asthma exacerbations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) in the treatment of asthma exacerbation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Clinical Trial databases using the keywords SMART therapy, maintenance and reliever therapy, and budesonide and formoterol. STUDY SELECTIONS: Articles were selected based on their relevance and applicability to this topic. RESULTS: Multiple studies have evaluated the efficacy of SMART in reducing asthma exacerbations in comparison to standard inhaled corticosteroid maintenance and short-acting beta-agonist rescue therapy. Most of the randomized trials demonstrated a reduction in asthma exacerbation with open-label studies revealing similar effectiveness in reducing asthma exacerbation. Previously, concerns have been raised regarding the administration of increased doses of long-acting beta-agonist that may potentially mask symptoms and delay appropriate medical attention. However, studies have not demonstrated an increase in morbidity or mortality. The primary concern regarding many of these trials is that they have been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. CONCLUSION: Although not all studies demonstrated the effectiveness of SMART, most revealed a substantial reduction in asthma exacerbation frequency and severity.

Allergic and eosinophilic asthma in the era of biomarkers and biologics: similarities, differences and misconceptions.

OBJECTIVE: Severe asthma is associated with substantial personal and economic burden; maintaining disease control is the key management goal. Increased understanding of asthma heterogeneity and development of type 2 (T2)-targeting biologics has substantially advanced disease management and outcomes; however, despite both being driven by T2 inflammation, allergic and eosinophilic asthma have different treatment recommendations. We sought to better understand the similarities and differences between allergic and eosinophilic asthma and highlight where misconceptions may arise. DATA SOURCES: Published articles, pivotal trials, post hoc analyses, and asthma clinical guidelines sourced from PubMed. STUDY SELECTIONS: Sources reporting allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications, disease mechanisms, and biomarkers associated with treatment response. RESULTS: This review highlights that severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma are both driven by T2 inflammation with eosinophils playing a cardinal role. Despite this overlap, treatment recommendations differ based on asthma classification. T2 cytokine gene expression is a reasonably well-established research tool, but not a well-established biomarker in clinical practice, unlike blood eosinophil counts, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and immunoglobulin E; the clinical relevance of immunoglobulin E as a predictive biomarker remains unclear. CONCLUSION: Asthma classifications that can be easily characterized at patient level to ensure accurate diagnosis, predict disease trajectory, and treatment response are required. The current dichotomy of allergic and eosinophilic asthma classifications is likely too simplistic, given the similar eosinophil-mediated disease pathophysiology in both classifications. Our results provide future directions to guide clinically meaningful interpretation of asthma endophenotypes, which may improve understanding of severe asthma characterization and aid future advances in defining responders more precisely with personalized medicine approaches.

Real-world evidence: Patient views on asthma in respiratory specialist clinics in America.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% to 50% of patients with moderate/severe asthma have inadequately controlled disease despite adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy. Data on prevalence and burden of uncontrolled asthma in specialty settings are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and burden of uncontrolled asthma in respiratory specialist clinics in the United States. METHODS: Adults with physician-diagnosed asthma attending pulmonary and allergy clinics with self-reported ICS use in the previous 4 weeks completed an electronic questionnaire including the Asthma Control Test and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Additional information was collected using an electronic case report form. RESULTS: Of 774 patients attending 12 pulmonary and 12 allergy clinics, 53% were not well controlled (mean [SD] Asthma Control Test, 14.3 [3.6] vs 22.4 [1.6] in well-controlled patients). Among ICS/LABA users, 56% were not well controlled, which increased with increasing ICS dose (low-dose 45.7%; high-dose 59.7%). The not well-controlled group reported more respiratory illnesses, more comorbidities, and poorer health-related quality of life (mean [SD] St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, 46.1 [18.9] vs 19.8 [12.9] in the well-controlled group). These patients also had more asthma exacerbations (≥1 exacerbation, 68.9% vs 43.1%) and increased health care resource utilization (≥1 asthma-related hospitalization, 10.7% vs 2.7%); 27.3% were also receiving systemic corticosteroids. Approximately 40% of the population were eligible for step-up to ICS/LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonist triple therapy, and 20% were eligible for biologic therapy. CONCLUSION: Substantial unmet needs exist among patients with inadequately controlled asthma managed in United States specialist settings, which may be addressed by improved patient and physician education, better guideline implementation, and improved adherence.

Peanut allergy diagnosis: A 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and GRADE analysis.

Given the burden of disease and the consequences of a diagnosis of peanut allergy, it is important that peanut allergy be accurately diagnosed so that an appropriate treatment plan can be developed. However, a test that indicates there is peanut sensitization present (eg, a "positive" test) is not always associated with clinical reactivity. This practice parameter addresses the diagnosis of IgE-mediated peanut allergy, both in children and adults, as pertaining to 3 fundamental questions, and based on the systematic reviews and meta-analyses, makes recommendations for the clinician who is evaluating a patient for peanut allergy. These questions relate to when diagnostic tests should be completed, which diagnostic tests to utilize, and the utility (or lack thereof) of diagnostic testing to predict the severity of a future allergic reaction to peanut.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Anaphylaxis-a 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.

From the pages of AllergyWatch®: November 2020.

For this month's edition of "From the Pages of AllergyWatch," I have chosen reviews of articles of interest to the clinical allergist. The first study found that wheezing infants with atopic sensitization at the time of the first wheezing episode was strongly associated with bronchial reactivity in childhood. The next review, of an article published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, investigated the complexity of atopic sensitization to foods in children with atopic dermatitis (AD). The final study confirms the determination of the US Environmental Protection Agency to the likely causal link between exposures to particulate matter and ozone and respiratory illness.

Clinical use of biologics for asthma treatment by allergy specialists: A questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with emerging phenotypes and endotypes. At present, 5 distinct biologics are Food and Drug Administration-approved as an add-on therapy for difficult-to-control type 2-high asthma. Because allergy specialists manage a spectrum of diseases for which biologics may be appropriate, it is important to understand their prescribing patterns. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the allergist's use of biologics in the treatment of asthma, including barriers, preferences, indications for prescribing, measures to determine effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A survey was performed among allergists using a semistructured 10-item self-administered web-based questionnaire and the responses were analyzed using one-way frequencies and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The response rate was approximately 9%. Omalizumab was the most prescribed biologic for asthma (98%), and "uncontrolled asthma despite adherence to controller medication" was the most common reason. The common selection criteria among the biologics included elevated peripheral eosinophil count, asthma with nasal polyps, and asthma type (type 1; type 2; nonallergic). A decreased exacerbation frequency was the best standard to determine the efficacy among biologics. Benralizumab was considered the most cost-effective. CONCLUSION: This study represents one of the largest surveys among allergy specialists regarding the real-world use of asthma biologics. It seems that there has been reasonably good dissemination and application of current guidelines among allergists based on prescribing patterns. However, their responses reflect the need for the continued modification of asthma guidelines that incorporate novel biologics and other pathway-specific agents into step therapy. As clinical phenotypes and predictive biomarkers develop, allergy specialists will be better prepared to practice precision medicine that optimizes the use of asthma biologics.

From the Pages of Allergy Watch: February 2020.

A new Annals feature in 2018, "From the Pages of AllergyWatch" is devoted to publishing synopses of Allergy and Asthma literature relevant to a topic of emphasis. These unbiased synopses and comments by our Editors have been previously printed in the AllergyWatch bimonthly newsletter, and it is our hope that presenting carefully selected article summaries and comments in the Annals will serve as a valuable educational resource for practicing allergists.