Clinical remission in severe asthma with biologic therapy: an analysis from the UK Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Novel biologic therapies have revolutionised the management of severe asthma with more ambitious treatment aims. Here we analyse the definition of clinical remission as a suggested treatment goal and consider the characteristics associated with clinical remission in a large, real-world severe asthma cohort. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of severe asthma patients registered in the UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) who met strict national access criteria for biologics. Patients had a pre-biologics baseline assessment and annual review. The primary definition of clinical remission applied included Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 <1.5 and no oral corticosteroids for disease control and forced expiratory volume in 1 s above lower limit of normal or no more than 100 mL less than baseline. RESULTS: 18.3% of patients achieved the primary definition of remission. The adjusted odds of remission on biologic therapy were 7.44 (95% CI 1.73-31.95)-fold higher in patients with type 2 (T2)-high biomarkers. The adjusted odds of remission were lower in patients who were female (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.93), obese (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.65) or had ACQ-5 ≥1.5 (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12-0.31) pre-biologic therapy. The likelihood of remission reduced by 14% (95% CI 0.76-0.97) for every 10-year increase in disease duration. 12-21% of the cohort attained clinical remission depending on the definition applied; most of those who did not achieve remission failed to meet multiple criteria. CONCLUSIONS: 18.3% of patients achieved the primary definition of clinical remission. Remission was more likely in T2-high biomarker patients with shorter duration of disease and less comorbidity. Further research on the optimum time to commence biologics in severe asthma is required.

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.

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

One-year follow up of asthmatic patients newly initiated on treatment with medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting ß2-agonist in UK primary care settings.

INTRODUCTION: Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS-LABA) as preferred treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. Limited data is available on how step 4/5 patients respond to ICS-LABA and how they step up/down in clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed the characteristics, control status, treatment pathways, and healthcare resource utilization in patients with asthma during one year after initiating medium- or high-dose ICS-LABA. Data from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink were analysed between January 01, 2006 and February 28, 2016. RESULTS: Overall, 29,229 and 16,575 patients initiated medium- and high-dose ICS-LABA, and 35.1% and 45.7% of patients, respectively, remained uncontrolled. The proportions of patients who were adherent to treatment (Medication Possession Ratio ≥80%) were 37.8% and 49.1% in the medium- and high-dose ICS-LABA cohorts, respectively. Among these adherent patients, 63.8% in the medium- and 70% in the high-dose cohorts remained uncontrolled. In patients who stepped up therapy in the medium-dose cohort (19.0%), the common step-up choices were add-on leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) (42.2%), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (23.3%), and increase in ICS dose (22.9%). In patients who stepped up therapy in the high-dose cohort (26.1%), the common step-up choices were add-on LAMA (43.8%) and LTRA (42.1%). Healthcare resource utilization was higher in uncontrolled patients, regardless of the ICS-LABA dose. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients remain uncontrolled on both medium- or high-dose ICS-LABA, highlighting the need for timely assessment of asthma control to increase treatment intensity, following evidence-based treatment pathways.

'SIMPLES': a structured primary care approach to adults with difficult asthma.

The substantial majority of patients with asthma can expect minimal breakthrough symptoms on standard doses of inhaled corticosteroids with or without additional add-on therapies. SIMPLES is a structured primary care approach to the review of a person with uncontrolled asthma which encompasses patient education monitoring, lifestyle and pharmacological management and addressing support needs which will achieve control in most patients. The small group of patients presenting with persistent asthma symptoms despite being prescribed high levels of treatment are often referred to as having 'difficult asthma'. Some will have difficult, 'therapy resistant' asthma, some will have psychosocial problems which make it difficult for them to achieve asthma control and some may prove to have an alternative diagnosis driving their symptoms. A few patients will benefit from referral to a 'difficult asthma' clinic. The SIMPLES approach, aligned with close co-operation between primary and specialist care, can identify this patient group, avoid inappropriate escalation of treatment, and streamline clinical assessment and management.