Benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment outcomes in two severe asthma clinics.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical outcomes of severe asthmatics treated with mepolizumab and benralizumab in a tertiary care severe asthma service setting. METHODS: Patient data at baseline, six and 12 months were collected prospectively at two large tertiary hospital severe asthma clinics following treatment initiation. Two hundred and four patients received treatment with mepolizumab (117) or benralizumab (87). Baseline characteristics between groups were similar in regard to age, gender, body mass index, steroid dose and blood eosinophil count. However, the mepolizumab cohort had a higher Asthma Control Questionnaire Score (ACQ) at baseline (4.0 ± 1.1 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9, p = 0.018), accompanied by more frequent reliever medication usage and lower prebronchodilator FEV1 % (56.0 ± 20.1 vs. 63.8 ± 18.9, p = 0.008). RESULTS: After 6 months treatment, both treatments induced significant improvements in (i) ACQ of 2.3 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001), (ii) oral steroid requiring exacerbations (incident rate ratio 0.26 (0.18-0.37), p < 0.001) and (iii) FEV1 . However, the improvement in FEV1 was 0.18 (0.05-0.30) litres greater with benralizumab than with mepolizumab (p = 0.002) even when adjusting statistically for baseline differences between groups. These differences were even more pronounced at 12 months post-treatment initiation, when the improvement in exacerbation frequency with benralizumab was 64% greater than with mepolizumab (p = 0.01). Whilst both treatments significantly reduced the blood eosinophil count at 6 and 12 months, this reduction was substantially greater with benralizumab than mepolizumab (-260 cells/µL [-400 to -110, p = 0.001]). CONCLUSION: In this large group of severe eosinophilic asthmatics, mepolizumab and benralizumab both improved disease parameters. However, benralizumab treatment appeared significantly more effective than mepolizumab in reducing exacerbations, improving FEV1 and depleting blood eosinophils.

Portable evaluation of obstructive sleep apnea in adults: A systematic review.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a significant healthcare burden affecting approximately one billion people worldwide. The prevalence of OSA is rising with the ongoing obesity epidemic, a key risk factor for its development. While in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) is the gold standard for diagnosing OSA, it has significant drawbacks that prevent widespread use. Portable devices with different levels of monitoring are available to allow remote assessment for OSA. To better inform clinical practice and research, this comprehensive systematic review evaluated diagnostic performances, study cost and patients' experience of different levels of portable sleep studies (type 2, 3, and 4), as well as wearable devices and non-contact systems, in adults. Despite varying study designs and devices used, portable diagnostic tests are found to be sufficient for initial screening of patients at risk of OSA. Future studies are needed to evaluate cost effectiveness with the incorporation of portable diagnostic tests into the diagnostic pathway for OSA, as well as their application in patients with chronic respiratory diseases and other comorbidities that may affect test performance.