Exploring Perceptions of Biologic Therapies: A Qualitative Study Among Canadians Living with Severe Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic therapies have demonstrated benefits for individuals with severe asthma, including reduced daily symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, data describing patient perspectives on these treatments are limited. This study sought to understand the preferences and priorities of Canadians with severe asthma in the context of novel biologic treatment options. METHODS: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted among Canadians with severe asthma from July to August 2022. Purposeful sampling included individuals with and without biologic therapy experience. All participants described daily life with severe asthma, experiences and priorities related to asthma treatment and their impressions of biologics. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to explore patterns in the data. RESULTS: Among 18 individuals included, 10 were currently taking or had prior experience with biologic treatment for asthma. Those who had never been treated with biologics were unfamiliar with them, considering treatment, or believed that they may not be eligible. Four themes were developed to convey the perspectives of participants on biologics: (1) life-changing benefits, but not for all; (2) navigating barriers to being prescribed and remaining adherent to biologic treatments; (3) treatment administration preferences are not only about convenience; (4) concerns about safety and the unknown as a source of treatment hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the clinical benefits of biologics align with patient perceptions of achieving good asthma control. However, treatment gaps persist among individuals who do not experience a meaningful improvement in their asthma symptoms and those who face barriers accessing biologics. People with severe asthma attributed importance to greater availability of at-home treatment options, improved access to financial support to cover treatment costs and support to address safety concerns. This research provides insight into patient-based treatment priorities and preferences for biologics, which may help inform decision-making related to emerging therapies for severe asthma.

For people with severe asthma, biologics are a treatment option that can be taken in addition to their regular medication. In this study, we asked 18 Canadians with severe asthma about how having severe asthma affects their lives, their current and previous asthma treatments, and their views on biologics. Ten people in this study were currently taking or had previously taken biologics for severe asthma. We found that biologics can be life changing. Also, people with severe asthma can find it difficult to get on and stay on biologics. They would like financial and educational support when considering biologics and prefer to take biologics at home, if possible. This study helps us understand the priorities and preferences related to biologics of patients with severe asthma.

Global Quality Statements on Reliever Use in Asthma in Adults and Children Older than 5 Years of Age.

INTRODUCTION: Widespread misuse of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) may contribute to asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Recognizing this, the Global Initiative for Asthma neither recommends SABA monotherapy nor regards this formulation as a preferred reliever. Many health systems and healthcare professionals (HCPs) experience practical issues in implementing guidelines. Clear quality standards can drive improvements in asthma care and encourage implementation of global and national medical guidelines. METHODS: A steering group of global asthma experts came together between May and September 2019 to develop quality statements codifying the minimum elements of good quality asthma care. These statements were either evidence based (when robust evidence was available) or reflected a consensus based on clinical expertise and experience of the group. RESULTS: The quality statements (and associated essential criteria) developed emphasize key elements concerning (1) objective diagnosis specific to individual symptoms, (2) treatment appropriate to the long-term management of asthma as an inflammatory disease, consistent with evidence-based recommendations, (3) controlled dispensing of SABA canisters and monitoring to prevent overuse, (4) regular review of patients after treatment initiation or change, and (5) follow-up of patients in primary care after treatment for an exacerbation in a hospital or an emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: The steering group proposes quality statements that national and local clinical groups can implement as quantitative quality standards that are appropriate to their local circumstances, including during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. By translating these statements into locally relevant quality standards, primary care physicians and HCPs can encourage optimal management and reduce preventable healthcare interactions. The evidence-based evolution of care encapsulated in these statements will further engender high-quality, patient-centered holistic management that addresses asthma as an inflammatory disease. In particular, the statements empower self-management by patients and encourage health-promoting behaviors, which are essential to reduce exacerbations, the primary goal of asthma management.

Inhaled Corticosteroid Treatment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Boon or Bane?

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based therapy is often used for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, this approach is under scrutiny because of ICS overuse in patients for whom it is not recommended and because of concerns about adverse events, particularly pneumonia, with long-term ICS use. Evidence suggests ICS may be beneficial in specific patients, namely, those with high blood eosinophil counts (eg, ≥300 cells/µL) or who are at a high risk of exacerbations. According to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2020 ABCD assessment tool, these patients belong in group D. For these patients, recommended initial treatment includes ICS in combination with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) when blood eosinophil counts are ≥300 cells/µL or LABA + long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when patients are highly symptomatic, that is, with greater dyspnea and/or exercise limitation. Follow-up treatments for patients with persistent dyspnea and/or exacerbations may include LABA + ICS, LABA + LAMA, or LABA + LAMA + ICS, with use of ICS being guided by blood eosinophil counts. In this review, differences in the inflammatory mechanism underlying COPD and asthma and the role of ICS treatment in COPD are summarized. Furthermore, findings from recent clinical trials where use of ICS-based dual or triple therapy in COPD was compared with LABA + LAMA therapy and trials in which ICS withdrawal was evaluated in patients with COPD are reviewed. Finally, a step-by-step guide for ICS withdrawal in patients who are unlikely to benefit from this treatment is proposed. A video of the author discussing the overall takeaway of the review article could be downloaded from the link provided: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq7Sr5jqPDI.