Lack of Clinical Control in COPD Patients Depending on the Target and the Therapeutic Option.

Introduction: According to the Global Initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease (GOLD), when a treatment is not achieving an appropriate response it should be switched taking into account the predominant treatable trait to target (dyspnea or exacerbations). The objective of the present study was to investigate the lack of clinical control according to the target and medication groups. Materials and Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of the CLAVE study, an observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study which evaluated the clinical control, and related-factors, in a cohort of 4801 patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary endpoint was the percentage of uncontrolled patients defined as COPD Assessment Test (CAT) >16 or presence of exacerbations in the last 3 months despite receiving long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and/or long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Secondary objectives included the description of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients by therapeutic group and the identification of characteristics potentially associated with the lack of control of COPD including low adherence measured by the test to adherence to inhalers (TAI). Results: In the dyspnea pathway, lack of clinical control was of 25.0% of patients receiving LABA or LAMA in monotherapy, 29.5% by those with LABA + LAMA, 38.3% with LABA + ICS and 37.0% with triple therapy (LABA + LAMA + ICS). In the exacerbation pathway, percentages were 87.1%, 76.7%, 83.3%, and 84.1%, respectively. Low physical activity and high Charlson comorbidity index were independent factor of non-control in all therapeutic groups. Additional factors were lower post-bronchodilator FEV1 and poor adherence to inhalers. Conclusion: There are still room for improvement in COPD control. From the pharmacological perspective, every step in treatment have a pool of uncontrolled patients in which a step-up could be considered according to a trait to target strategy.

Global Variability in Administrative Approval Prescription Criteria for Biologic Therapy in Severe Asthma.

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.

Development of a Tool to Measure the Clinical Response to Biologic Therapy in Uncontrolled Severe Asthma: The FEV1, Exacerbations, Oral Corticosteroids, Symptoms Score.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of tools to quantify the response to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) holistically in severe uncontrolled asthma patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop a valid score to assist specialists in this clinical context. METHODS: The score was developed in four subsequent phases: (1) elaboration of the theoretical model of the construct intended to be measured (response to mAbs); (2) definition and selection of items and measurement instruments by Delphi survey; (3) weight assignment of the selected items by multicriteria decision analysis using the Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of All Possible Alternatives methodology using the 1000minds software; and (4) face validity assessment of the obtained score. RESULTS: Four core items, with different levels of response for each, were selected: severe exacerbations, oral corticosteroid use, symptoms (evaluated by Asthma Control Test), and bronchial obstruction (assessed by FEV1 percent predicted). Severe exacerbations and oral corticosteroid maintenance dose were weighted most heavily (38% each), followed by symptoms (13%) and FEV1 (11%). Higher scores in the weighted system indicate a better response and the range of responses runs from 0 (worsening) to 100 (best possible response). Face validity was high (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The FEV1, exacerbations, oral corticosteroids, symptoms score allows clinicians to quantify response in severe uncontrolled asthma patients who are being treated with mAbs.

Implementation of an Integrated Care Model for Frequent-Exacerbator COPD Patients: A Controlled Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Frequent-exacerbator COPD (fe-COPD) associated with frequent hospital admissions have high morbidity, mortality and use of health resources. These patients should be managed in personalized integrated care models (ICM). Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of a fe-COPD ICM on emergency room (ER) visits, hospital admissions, days of hospitalization, mortality and improvement of health status. METHODS: Prospective-controlled study with analysis of a cohort of fe-COPD patients assigned to ICM and followed-up for maximally 7 years that were compared to a parallel cohort who received standard care. All patients had a confirmed diagnosis of COPD with a history of ≥2 hospital admissions due to exacerbations in the year before enrollment. The change in CAT score and mMRC dyspnea scale, hospital admissions, ER visits, days of hospitalization, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: 141 patients included in the ICM were compared to 132 patients who received standard care. The ICM reduced hospitalizations by 38.2% and ER visits by 69.7%, with reduction of hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation, ER visits and days of hospitalization (p<0.05) compared to standard care. Further, health status improved among the ICM group after 1 year of follow-up (p=0.001), effect sustained over 3 years. However, mortality was not different between groups (p=0.117). Last follow-up CAT score>17 was the strongest independent risk factor for mortality and hospitalization among ICM patients. CONCLUSIONS: An ICM for fe-COPD patients effectively decreases ER and hospital admissions and improves health status, but not mortality.

A Delphi Consensus Document on the Use of Single-Inhaler Fixed-Dose Triple Therapies in COPD Patients.

Introduction: Despite the evidence provided by clinical trials, there are some uncertainties and controversies regarding the use of triple inhaled therapy. With the aim of evaluating clinical practice in specialized respiratory units, a Delphi consensus document was implemented on the use of single-inhaler fixed-dose triple therapies after 1 year of use in Spain. Methods: A scientific committee of COPD experts defined a thematic index, guided a systematic literature review and helped design the Delphi questionnaire. This was sent to the other 45 COPD experts between April and June 2019. Agreement/disagreement on 58 statements was tested in two rounds using a Likert scale. Replies were classified as a consensus when ≥80% of the panelists agreed; a majority when a degree of agreement of ≥66% was reached; and divergence if agreement was <66%. Results: After two rounds, 44.44% of the statements reached consensus, 14.81% reached majority and 40.74% were divergent. Panelists agreed that escalating from double bronchodilation should be phenotype-based and aim to prevent exacerbations but not for improving symptoms. The addition of an antimuscarinic to inhaled corticosteroids combinations achieves improvement in lung function, symptoms and exacerbation prevention. Main safety concerns included the increased risk of pneumonia as compared to bronchodilator therapies, with similar cardiovascular effects. There was no consensus agreement on patient type response based on blood eosinophil counts or obstruction severity. Conclusion: The low degree of consensus among panelists may reflect the complexity of severe COPD management. The information provided here may be useful to clinicians implementing personalized medicine for COPD patients.