Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with allergic asthma: A real-life study.

Background: The efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma have been established in both randomized controlled trials and real-life studies. Objective: To evaluate the sustained effectiveness and safety of long-term treatment with omalizumab in a real-world setting. Methods: In this retrospective study, we included patients treated with omalizumab for at least 8 years in four asthma clinics in Greece. Pulmonary function, asthma control, oral corticosteroids (OCS) dose, and exacerbations were recorded before treatment, 6 months later, and annually thereafter. Adverse events were also recorded. Results: Forty-five patients (66.7% women), mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 55.3 ± 12.2 years, were included. The duration of treatment with omalizumab was 10.6 ± 1.2 years. The annual exacerbation rate decreased from 4.1 before omalizumab initiation to 1.1 after 1 year of treatment and remained low up to the 8th year of treatment (p < 0.001). From the 19 patients who were receiving OCS at baseline, 21.1% patients discontinued after 6 months, 47.4% were still on OCS after 4 years of therapy, and 31.6% were on OCS after 8 years. With regard to the OCS dose, 36.8% of the patients reduced the dose ≥ 50% after 6 months and 68.4% achieved 50% reduction after 2 years. The mean daily OCS dose before omalizumab initiation was 7.8 mg of prednisolone or the equivalent, reduced to 4.7 mg/day after 6 months, which reached 1.6 mg/day after 8 years (p < 0.001). Treatment with omalizumab resulted in significant improvements of asthma control and lung function. No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusion: In this real-life study, omalizumab resulted in significant and sustained improvements in asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and lung function, and had a steroid sparing effect and a good safety profile.

Pulmonary hemorrhage in patients receiving anti-platelets- a case series and a suggested therapeutic algorithm.

Antiplatelet therapy including aspirin and thienopyridine agents (such as clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor) are often used in patients with coronary disease. Pulmonary hemorrhage due to antiplatelet therapy although very rare, when excessive, is a life-threatening event. So far, there is lack of specific guidelines for the management of these patients. We report a case series of 5 patients receiving antiplatelet therapy who were admitted to the hospital due to pulmonary hemorrhage related to antiplatelet therapy. We also propose an algorithm on the management of these patients taking into consideration the balance between thrombotic and bleeding risk and the severity of the hemorrhage.

Device use errors among patients with asthma and COPD and the role of training: a real-life study.

Background and objectives: Administration of inhaled medication for asthma and COPD is often difficult and incorrect device use is associated with unfavorable outcomes. We aimed to evaluate device use errors in asthma and COPD patients and to associate incorrect use with the patient's characteristics and medical history.Methods: Demographics and medical history were recorded. The use of each prescribed device was evaluated according to predefined steps.Results: 607 patients (49.9% male, median age (IQR) 63 (51, 70) years performed 663 demonstrations (56 patients were using 2 different types of devices). 51.4% were treated for asthma and 48.6% for COPD. 79.6% of demonstrations were performed using DPIs. Errors were documented on 41.2% of demonstrations and were associated with the type of device, p < 0.001. Elderly patients were less frequently using their devices correctly compared to younger patients, 50.8% vs 62.2%, respectively, p = 0.007. Correct demonstrations were more among asthmatics compared to COPD patients 63.1% vs 54.5%, p = 0.024. Incorrect use was associated with more acute exacerbations in the preceding year [median(IQR), 1(0, 2) vs 1(0, 1)], for incorrect and correct use, respectively, p < 0.001. Upon demonstration, 15.5% of patients have never been trained (i.e., undergone actual demonstrations and observation while using their device) by anyone. Errors occurred more frequently among patients who reported not to be trained compared to those who were trained, 67.0% vs 14.6%, respectively, p < 0.001. The commonest error was associated with the inspiration maneuver and accounted for the 48.3% of errors in the DPIs and 53.0% of errors in the MDIs.Conclusion: Device use errors are common and associated with unfavorable outcomes. Trained patients were more likely to use the device correctly.