Comparative effectiveness of anti-IL5 and anti-IgE biologic classes in patients with severe asthma eligible for both.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

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.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD patients: rationale and algorithms.

Observational studies indicate that overutilization of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is common in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Overprescription and the high risk of serious ICS-related adverse events make withdrawal of this treatment necessary in patients for whom the treatment-related risks outweigh the expected benefits. Elaboration of an optimal, universal, user-friendly algorithm for withdrawal of ICS therapy has been identified as an important clinical need. This article reviews the available evidence on the efficacy, risks, and indications of ICS in COPD, as well as the benefits of ICS treatment withdrawal in patients for whom its use is not recommended by current guidelines. After discussing proposed approaches to ICS withdrawal published by professional associations and individual authors, we present a new algorithm developed by consensus of an international group of experts in the field of COPD. This relatively simple algorithm is based on consideration and integrated assessment of the most relevant factors (markers) influencing decision-making, such a history of exacerbations, peripheral blood eosinophil count, presence of infection, and risk of community-acquired pneumonia.

Improvement In Self-Reported Physical Functioning With Tiotropium/Olodaterol In Central And Eastern European COPD Patients.

Background: Reduced physical activity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with COPD. Studies suggest that treatment with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium and the long-acting ß2-agonist olodaterol increases exercise capacity. This study assessed the effects of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of tiotropium/olodaterol (delivered via Respimat®) on physical functioning in patients with stable COPD in a "real-world setting". Methods: An international, open-label, single-arm, non-interventional study conducted in nine countries measuring changes in self-reported physical functioning in COPD patients treated with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg FDC for approximately 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was therapeutic success, defined as a minimum 10-point increase in the 10-question Physical Functioning Questionnaire (PF-10) score. Secondary endpoints included absolute change in PF-10 from Visit 1 to Visit 2, patient general condition (measured by Physician's Global Evaluation score) and patient satisfaction with the treatment and device (assessed by Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire at the end of the study period). Results: Therapeutic success was observed in 67.8% of 7218 patients (95% CI 66.7, 68.8) in the final analysis set after approximately 6 weeks of treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol. Mean change in PF-10 score between Visit 1 and Visit 2 was 16.6 points (95% CI 16.2, 17.0). Therapeutic success was 64.3% (95% CI 63.0-65.6%) in patients with infrequent (≤1) and 76.1% (95% CI 74.3-77.9%) in patients with frequent (≥2) exacerbations (p<0.0001). Patient general condition improved as indicated by an improvement in Physician's Global Evaluation scores between visits. Most patients were very satisfied or satisfied with tiotropium/olodaterol treatment in general (81%), reported inhalation satisfaction (85%), and satisfactory handling of the device (84%). 1.3% of patients reported an investigator-defined drug-related adverse event. Conclusion: Treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol led to an improvement in self-reported physical functioning in patients with COPD.

Russian guidelines for the management of COPD: algorithm of pharmacologic treatment.

The high prevalence of COPD together with its high level of misdiagnosis and late diagnosis dictate the necessity for the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in order to improve the management of this disease. High-quality, evidence-based international CPGs need to be adapted to the particular situation of each country or region. A new version of the Russian Respiratory Society guidelines released at the end of 2016 was based on the proposal by Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease but adapted to the characteristics of the Russian health system and included an algorithm of pharmacologic treatment of COPD. The proposed algorithm had to comply with the requirements of the Russian Ministry of Health to be included into the unified electronic rubricator, which required a balance between the level of information and the simplicity of the graphic design. This was achieved by: exclusion of the initial diagnostic process, grouping together the common pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic measures for all patients, and the decision not to use the letters A-D for simplicity and clarity. At all stages of the treatment algorithm, efficacy and safety have to be carefully assessed. Escalation and de-escalation is possible in the case of lack of or insufficient efficacy or safety issues. Bronchodilators should not be discontinued except in the case of significant side effects. At the same time, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal is not represented in the algorithm, because it was agreed that there is insufficient evidence to establish clear criteria for ICSs discontinuation. Finally, based on the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease statement, the proposed algorithm reflects and summarizes different approaches to the pharmacological treatment of COPD taking into account the reality of health care in the Russian Federation.

Inhaled therapies in patients with moderate COPD in clinical practice: current thinking.

COPD is a complex, heterogeneous condition. Even in the early clinical stages, COPD carries a significant burden, with breathlessness frequently leading to a reduction in exercise capacity and changes that correlate with long-term patient outcomes and mortality. Implementation of an effective management strategy is required to reduce symptoms, preserve lung function, quality of life, and exercise capacity, and prevent exacerbations. However, current clinical practice frequently differs from published guidelines on the management of COPD. This review focuses on the current scientific evidence and expert opinion on the management of moderate COPD: the symptoms arising from moderate airflow obstruction and the burden these symptoms impose, how physical activity can improve disease outcomes, the benefits of dual bronchodilation in COPD, and the limited evidence for the benefits of inhaled corticosteroids in this disease. We emphasize the importance of maximizing bronchodilation in COPD with inhaled dual-bronchodilator treatment, enhancing patient-related outcomes, and enabling the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD in well-defined patient groups.