Model-based comparisons of post-treatment free IgE and FEV1 between omalizumab asthma dosing tables in the United States and European Union.

AIMS: Omalizumab is an anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibody that was first approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of allergic asthma in 2003. The pivotal trials supporting the initial approval of omalizumab used dosing determined by patient's baseline IgE and body weight, with the goal of reducing the mean free IgE level to approximately 25 ng/mL or less. While the underlying parameters supporting the dosing table remained the same, subsequent studies and analyses have resulted in approved alternative versions of the dosing table, including the European Union (EU) asthma dosing table, which differs in weight bands and maximum allowable baseline IgE and omalizumab dose. In this study, we leveraged modelling and simulation approaches to predict and compare the free IgE reduction and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) improvement with omalizumab dosing based on the US and EU asthma dosing tables. METHODS: Previously established population pharmacokinetic-IgE and IgE-FEV1 models were used to predict and compare post-treatment free IgE and FEV1 based on the US and EU dosing tables. Clinical trial simulations (with virtual asthma populations) and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to provide both breadth and depth in the comparisons. RESULTS: The US and EU asthma dosing tables were predicted to result in generally comparable free IgE suppression and FEV1 improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the similar free IgE and FEV1 outcomes from simulations, this has not been clinically validated with respect to the registrational endpoint of reduction in annualized asthma exacerbations.

Meaningful changes for efficacy outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Objective: Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) and Nasal Congestion Score (NCS) are commonly used clinical trial endpoints to determine improvements in response to treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, limited information is available on within-patient meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) and between-group minimal important differences (MIDs) for NPS and NCS, which would aid interpretation of results. Methods: Data from phase 3 placebo-controlled trials of omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2) were used to estimate MCTs and MIDs for both NPS and NCS using anchor-based methods. Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) and SNOT-22 Sino-Nasal Symptoms Subscale (SNSS) scores were used as anchors (≥0.35 correlation with NPS and NCS). Within- and between-group differences in NPS and NCS change scores were used to estimate MCTs and MIDs, respectively. Identified MCTs were used in unblinded responder analyses to compare the proportions of patients per treatment group achieving a meaningful improvement. Results: MCTs and MIDs were estimated at -1.0 and -0.5 for NPS and -0.50 and -0.35 for NCS, respectively, and were consistent across studies. Overall, 57.0% of patients achieved the MCT in NPS with omalizumab vs 29.9% with placebo (p < 0.0001). Similarly, 58.9% of patients achieved the MCT in NCS with omalizumab vs 30.7% with placebo (p < 0.0001). Group differences in mean change were statistically significant and exceeded the estimated MIDs. Conclusions: Meaningful change estimates for NPS and NCS could be used to assess response to treatment for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.Trial registration: POLYP1: clinicaltrails.gov NCT03280550; registered September 12, 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280550). POLYP2 (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03280537; registered September 12, 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280537).

Usage of long-acting muscarinic antagonists and biologics as add-on therapy for patients in the United States with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Many asthma patients remain uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta agonists (LABAs), but guidance for selecting add-on therapies, including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) or biologics, is limited. We describe how prescribing practices for add-on LAMA and biologic therapy have changed with increased treatment options and revised treatment guidelines. We further identify differences in treatment initiation and discontinuation rates by patient characteristics, including concomitant COPD.This retrospective cohort study analyzed insurance claims in the IBM Marketscan database for adult US asthma patients treated with medium- or high-dose ICS/LABA between 2012 and 2019 (n = 277,373). We used negative binomial regression models to evaluate LAMA and biologic initiation rates and their association with patient characteristics, and survival analysis methods for assessing discontinuation rates.Between 2012 and 2019, LAMA and biologic uptake increased approximately 5-fold and 20-fold, respectively. LAMA initiation was significantly higher among patients with concomitant COPD, a group typically unstudied in clinical trials, versus those with asthma only (rate ratio of 5.90, 95% CI: 5.76-6.04). High-dose ICS/LABA treatment and the need for oral corticosteroid (OCS) bursts had stronger associations with biologic initiation. Probability of discontinuation (i.e. non-persistence) in the first year was 40.5% and 22.7% for those initiating LAMAs and biologics, respectively, with higher LAMA discontinuation rates among patients with asthma only versus those with concomitant COPD.Our results provide insights into how clinicians apply treatment guidelines for initiating add-on LAMA and biologic therapies in moderate-to-severe asthma patients and highlight patients who have an unmet treatment need after discontinuation.

Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab for nasal polyposis in an open-label extension study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) frequently remains uncontrolled despite maximal medical therapy and sinonasal surgery, presenting several unmet needs and challenges. Omalizumab previously demonstrated efficacy in CRSwNP in duplicate phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (POLYP 1, POLYP 2). OBJECTIVE: This open-label extension evaluated the continued efficacy, safety, and durability of response of omalizumab in adults with CRSwNP who completed POLYP 1 or 2. METHODS: After 24 weeks of omalizumab or placebo in POLYP 1 and 2, patients (n = 249) received open-label omalizumab plus background nasal mometasone therapy for 28 weeks and were subsequently followed for 24 weeks after omalizumab discontinuation. Efficacy end points assessed change from baseline for the coprimary end points, Nasal Polyp Score and Nasal Congestion Score, and the secondary end points of Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22, Total Nasal Symptom Score and its components, and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test scores. Safety objectives included incidence of adverse events and adverse events leading to omalizumab discontinuation. RESULTS: Patients who continued omalizumab experienced further improvements across coprimary end points and secondary end points through 52 weeks. Patients who switched from placebo to omalizumab experienced favorable responses across end points through week 52 that were similar to POLYP 1 and 2 at week 24. After omalizumab discontinuation, scores gradually worsened over the 24-week follow-up, but remained improved from pretreatment levels for both groups. The safety profile was similar to previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety profile from this study supports extended omalizumab treatment up to 1 year for CRSwNP with inadequate response to nasal corticosteroids.

Pharmacokinetics and exposure-efficacy relationships of omalizumab in patients with nasal polyps.

The anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody, omalizumab (Xolair), is approved in the United States for the treatment of allergic asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria, and has recently been studied for the treatment of nasal polyposis following completion of the two replicate phase 3 studies (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2). The dosing of omalizumab used in the phase 3 studies is based on a combination of patients' pre-treatment IgE level and body weight, similar to the approach used in allergic asthma. The objectives of the current analyses were to evaluate whether the pharmacokinetics (PK) of omalizumab and its pharmacodynamic (PD) effect on free and total IgE level in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) are consistent with those in allergic asthma via population PK/PD modeling and simulation, and to graphically explore exposure-response relationships and free IgE-response relationships in CRSwNP. Omalizumab PK and PD effect of total and free IgE in CRSwNP are generally consistent with those in asthma. Observed post-treatment free IgE suppressions were generally within the target range of the baseline IgE- and body weight-based omalizumab dosing table, with 74.2% and 93.0% of patients achieving a serum free IgE level below 25 ng/mL and 50 ng/mL, respectively at Week 24. Exposure-response analyses indicated that there was no clear correlation between omalizumab or free IgE concentration and key efficacy endpoints within the POLYP studies. Overall, these results indicate that the body weight and IgE-based dosing regimen of omalizumab was appropriate for use in CRSwNP patients.

Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is characterized by IgE hyperproduction and eosinophilic inflammation. The anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with CRSwNP and comorbid asthma previously. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine omalizumab safety and efficacy in CRSwNP in phase 3 trials (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2). METHODS: Adults with CRSwNP with inadequate response to intranasal corticosteroids were randomized (1:1) to omalizumab or placebo and intranasal mometasone for 24 weeks. Coprimary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) and Nasal Congestion Score. Secondary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, sense of smell, postnasal drip, runny nose, and adverse events. RESULTS: Patients in POLYP 1 (n = 138) and POLYP 2 (n = 127) exhibited severe CRSwNP and substantial quality of life impairment evidenced by a mean NPS higher than 6 and SNOT-22 score of approximately 60. Both studies met both the coprimary end points. SNOT-22 score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score, sense of smell, postnasal drip, and runny nose were also significantly improved for omalizumab versus placebo. In POLYP 1 and POLYP 2, the mean changes from baseline at week 24 for omalizumab versus placebo were as follows: NPS, -1.08 versus 0.06 (P < .0001) and -0.90 versus -0.31 (P = .0140); Nasal Congestion Score, -0.89 versus -0.35 (P = .0004) and -0.70 versus -0.20 (P = .0017); and SNOT-22 score, -24.7 versus -8.6 (P < .0001) and -21.6 versus -6.6 (P < .0001). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in severe CRSwNP with inadequate response to intranasal corticosteroids, and it was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab (an anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibody) in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical corticosteroids: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial (TREBLE).

BACKGROUND: Interleukin (IL)-13 plays a key role in type 2 inflammation and is an emerging pathogenic mediator in atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: We investigated the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab, an IL-13 monoclonal antibody, as an add-on to topical corticosteroid (TCS) treatment. METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 study. Adults with moderate-to-severe AD were required to use TCS twice daily and then randomized (1:1:1:1) to lebrikizumab 125 mg single dose, lebrikizumab 250 mg single dose, lebrikizumab 125 mg every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, after a 2-week TCS run-in. The primary endpoint was percentage of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-50 at week 12. RESULTS: In total, 209 patients received the study drug. At week 12, significantly more patients achieved EASI-50 with lebrikizumab 125 mg every 4 weeks (82.4%; P = .026) than placebo every 4 weeks (62.3%); patients receiving a single dose of lebrikizumab showed no statistically significant improvements in EASI-50 compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar between groups (66.7% all lebrikizumab vs 66.0% placebo) and mostly mild or moderate. LIMITATIONS: Protocol-mandated twice daily TCS treatment limits our understanding of the efficacy of lebrikizumab as a monotherapy. The short study duration did not enable long-term efficacy or safety evaluations. CONCLUSION: When combined with TCS, lebrikizumab 125 mg taken every 4 weeks led to a significant improvement and was well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.

Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among patients receiving omalizumab: Results from EXCELS, a prospective cohort study in moderate to severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: EXCELS, a postmarketing observational cohort study, was a commitment to the US Food and Drug Administration to assess the long-term safety of omalizumab in an observational setting, focusing predominantly on malignancies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine a potential association between omalizumab and cardiovascular (CV)/cerebrovascular (CBV) events in EXCELS. METHODS: Patients (≥12 years of age) with moderate to severe allergic asthma and who were being treated with omalizumab (n = 5007) or not (n = 2829) at baseline were followed up for ≤5 years. Analyses included overall CV/CBV events, but focused on the subset of arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs), comprising CV death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, and unstable angina. A prespecified analysis of the end point of ATE was conducted to control for available potential confounders. A blinded independent expert panel adjudicated all events. RESULTS: At baseline, the 2 cohorts had similar demographic characteristics, but severe asthma was more common in the omalizumab versus the non-omalizumab group (50% vs 23%). Omalizumab-treated patients had a higher rate of CV/CBV serious adverse events (13.4 per 1,000 person years [PYs]) than did non-omalizumab-treated patients (8.1 per 1,000 PYs). The ATE rates per 1,000 PYs were 6.66 (101 patients/15,160 PYs) in the omalizumab cohort and 4.64 (46 patients/9,904 PYs) in the non-omalizumab cohort. After control for available confounding factors, the hazard ratio was 1.32 (95% CI, 0.91-1.91). CONCLUSION: This observational study demonstrated a higher incidence rate of CV/CBV events in the omalizumab versus the non-omalizumab cohort. Differences in asthma severity between cohorts likely contributed to this imbalance, but some increase in risk cannot be excluded.

A randomized multicenter study evaluating Xolair persistence of response after long-term therapy.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available to assist clinicians with decisions regarding long-term use of asthma therapies, including omalizumab. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the benefit and persistence of response in subjects continuing or withdrawing from long-term omalizumab treatment. METHODS: Evaluating the Xolair Persistency Of Response After Long-Term Therapy (XPORT) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal study that included subjects with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma receiving long-term omalizumab. Subjects were randomized by using a hierarchical dynamic randomization scheme to continue their same dose of omalizumab or withdraw to placebo and were then followed every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was any protocol-defined severe asthma exacerbation. The secondary outcome was time to first protocol-defined severe asthma exacerbation. Exploratory outcomes included changes in Asthma Control Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test scores. RESULTS: Significantly more subjects in the omalizumab group (67%) had no protocol-defined exacerbation than in the placebo group (47.7%); an absolute difference of 19.3% (95% CI, 5.0%, 33.6%) represents a 40.1% relative difference. Time to first protocol-defined exacerbation analysis revealed a significantly different between-group exacerbation pattern that was consistent with the primary analysis. Subjects continuing omalizumab had significantly better asthma control (mean [SD] change from baseline to week 52: Asthma Control Test score, -1.16 [4.14] vs placebo, -2.88 [5.38], P = .0188; Asthma Control Questionnaire score, 0.22 [0.66] vs placebo, 0.63 [1.13], P = .0039). Discontinuation of omalizumab was associated with an increase in free IgE levels and an increase in basophil expression of the high-affinity IgE receptor. No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSION: Continuation of omalizumab after long-term treatment results in continued benefit, as evidenced by improved symptom control and reduced exacerbation risk.

Corticosteroid-related toxicity in patients with chronic idiopathic urticariachronic spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU)chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who were unresponsive to antihistamines include oral corticosteroids (OCS). Risks of OCS-related side effects in these patients have not been described quantitatively. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between OCS use and the risk of developing side effects possibly attributable to OCS and associated health care costs in privately insured patients with CIU/CSU. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed a commercial claims data base from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2012. Patients with CIU/CSU were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes via a validated algorithm. Possible OCS-related side effects included the following: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, lipid disorders, cataracts, depression or mania, osteoporosis or fractures, and infectious diseases. A time-dependent Cox regression (adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and immunomodulator use) was used to separately model cumulative oral prednisone-equivalent exposure and the risk of side effects. Incremental total adjusted health care costs were compared in patients with versus patients without possible OCS-related side effects. RESULTS: Among 12,647 patients with CIU/CSU, 55.4% used OCS. An additional 1 g of prednisone-equivalent exposure was associated with a 7% increase in the likelihood of developing a possible side effect (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% confidence interval, 1.051.08]). From the period before to the period after OCS initiation, the total mean adjusted annual health care costs increased by 1833 in users of OCS with new possible side effects and decreased by 2183 in patients without new possible side effects (p 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with CIU/CSU who were treated with OCS had an increased risk of possible OCS-related side effects and higher total health care costs than their counterparts not treated with OCS.

Health care resource use and costs associated with possible side effects of high oral corticosteroid use in asthma: a claims-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of possible oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related side effects and health care resource use and costs in patients with asthma. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, matched-cohort, retrospective study using a commercial claims database. Adults with asthma diagnosis codes and evidence of asthma medication use were studied. Patients with high OCS use (≥30 days of OCS annually) were divided into those who did versus those who did not experience OCS-related possible side effects. Their health care resource use and costs were compared using linear regression or negative binomial regression models, adjusting for age, sex, geographic region, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease status. RESULTS: After adjustment, high OCS users with possible side effects were more likely to have office visits (23.0 vs 19.6; P<0.001) and hospitalizations (0.44 vs 0.22; P<0.001) than those without possible side effects. Emergency department visits were similar between the groups. High OCS users with possible side effects had higher adjusted total annual mean health care costs ($25,168) than those without such side effects ($21,882; P=0.009). CONCLUSION: Among high OCS users, patients with possible OCS-related side effects are more likely to use health care services than those without such side effects. Although OCS may help control asthma and manage exacerbations, OCS side effects may result in additional health care resource use and costs, highlighting the need for OCS-sparing asthma therapies.

Improvement of sleep in patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria treated with omalizumab: results of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) report difficulty with sleep. METHODS: We examined the effect of omalizumab on sleep-related outcomes during 3-6 months omalizumab or placebo treatment and a 16-week follow-up period within three Phase III double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pivotal trials in CIU/CSU: ASTERIA I, ASTERIA II, and GLACIAL. Sleep quality was assessed in all three studies using sleep-related questions included in an electronic diary, the Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale. Score changes from baseline in the treatment arms were compared with that in the placebo arm and adjusted for baseline score and weight. We also examined correlations of sleep scores at baseline, week 12, and week 24 and the slopes of change between sleep and itch and hive. RESULTS: Patients treated with omalizumab reported a larger reduction in sleep problems than those in the placebo arm; omalizumab 300 mg demonstrated the greatest improvement on all sleep components among all treatment arms. The largest reduction in sleep problems was reported within the first 4 weeks of therapy. After treatment discontinuation, sleep quality worsened. Sleep scores demonstrated moderate-to-strong correlation between them, and the change in sleep scores was associated with changes in itch and hives. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in sleep was reported after the first dose of omalizumab. Sleep continued to improve throughout the active treatment period. Patients receiving omalizumab 300 mg achieved greater improvement in sleep than those in other treatment arms. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01287117 (ASTERIA I), NCT01292473 (ASTERIA II), and NCT01264939 (GLACIAL).

Sleep Apnea and Obstructive Airway Disease in Older Men: Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between obstructive airway disease (OAD) and sleep apnea in older men. METHODS: A community-based cross-sectional study of 853 community-dwelling older men (mean age 80.7 ± 4.1 years [range 73 to 90]) across 6 centers in the United States from the Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men Study. Sleep was objectively measured using full in-home polysomnography and lung function was objectively measured using spirometry. The association of OAD (pre-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio < 0.7 and FEV1 < 80% predicted) and sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥ 15 events/hour) was assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: OAD and sleep apnea were identified in 111 (13.0%) and 247 (29.0%) men, respectively. In univariate analysis, participants with OAD had a lower AHI (mean ± SD; 8.7 ± 11.7 vs. 12.7 ± 13.8, P = 0.0009) and a lower prevalence of sleep apnea (14.4 vs. 31.1%, P = 0.0003) compared to participants without OAD. OAD remained independently associated with a lower odds of sleep apnea (odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55, P = 0.0001) after adjustment for demographics, body composition, smoking, and potential mediators (arousal index, time spent in rapid eye movement sleep). Individuals with OAD and sleep apnea (n = 16) had an increased arousal index and lower oxygen saturation level as compared to individuals with OAD alone (P values < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Obstructive airway disease was associated with a lower prevalence of sleep apnea in a cohort of community-dwelling elderly men, and unexplained by differences in adiposity or sleep architecture. Although uncommon in this cohort, coexisting sleep apnea and OAD was associated with increased sleep fragmentation and nocturnal oxygen desaturation compared to OAD alone.

Timing and duration of omalizumab response in patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available that describe response patterns in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU)/chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) treated with omalizumab. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe response patterns by using data from the 3 pivotal omalizumab CIU/CSU trials. METHODS: Every 4 weeks, randomized patients received dosing with placebo or 75, 150, or 300 mg of omalizumab (ASTERIA I: n = 318, 24 weeks; ASTERIA II: n = 322, 12 weeks) or placebo or 300 mg of omalizumab (GLACIAL: n = 335, 24 weeks). Response was defined as well-controlled urticaria (weekly Urticaria Activity Score [UAS7] ≤ 6) or complete response (UAS7 = 0). RESULTS: Response rates were dose dependent and highest with 300 mg of omalizumab. Some patients responded early (before week 4). At week 12, a higher proportion of patients treated with 300 mg of omalizumab reported a UAS7 ≤ 6 (26.0% [75 mg of omalizumab], 40.0% [150 mg of omalizumab], 51.9% [300 mg of omalizumab], and 11.3% [placebo] for ASTERIA I; 26.8% [75 mg of omalizumab], 42.7% [150 mg of omalizumab], 65.8% [300 mg of omalizumab], and 19.0% [placebo] for ASTERIA II; and 52.4% [300 mg of omalizumab] and 12.0% [placebo] for GLACIAL) or a UAS7 = 0 (11.7% [75 mg of omalizumab], 15.0% [150 mg of omalizumab], 35.8% [300 mg of omalizumab], and 8.8% [placebo] for ASTERIA I; 15.9% [75 mg of omalizumab], 22.0% [150 mg of omalizumab], 44.3% [300 mg of omalizumab], and 5.1% [placebo] for ASTERIA II; and 33.7% [300 mg of omalizumab] and 4.8% [placebo] for GLACIAL). In patients receiving 300 mg of omalizumab with 24 weeks of treatment, median time to achieve a UAS7 ≤ 6 was 6 weeks (ASTERIA I and GLACIAL) and median time to achieve a UAS7 = 0 was 12 or 13 weeks (ASTERIA I and GLACIAL, respectively). Some patients who achieved well-controlled urticaria or complete response sustained response throughout the treatment period. CONCLUSION: Benefits of omalizumab treatment were evident early (before week 4) in some patients and persisted to week 24. Use of 300 mg of omalizumab demonstrated best results in controlling CIU/CSU symptoms.

Risk of corticosteroid-related adverse events in asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid use.

BACKGROUND: Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are a mainstay of asthma treatment. Their use increases the risk of various corticosteroid-related adverse events, but the extent of risk is poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental risk of possible corticosteroid-related adverse events (AE) in asthma among patients with high OCS use compared with patients who do not use OCS. METHODS: Patients with asthma in a commercial health care claims data base who were high-OCS users (≥30 days of OCS use annually) were matched to no-OCS users by age, sex, and geographic region, and the presence or absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as a comorbidity. We examined bone-related conditions, pneumonia, opportunistic infections, diabetes mellitus, and other disorders as potential AEs by using χ(2) tests to compare potential AE prevalence between the cohorts, with and without stratification by a COPD diagnosis. We controlled for the number of inhaled steroids (ICS) canisters filled. RESULTS: A total of 3604 patients with asthma and high OCS use were matched to 3604 patients who did not use OCS (mean age, 54.4; 68.1% female; 44.9% with COPD). Patients with high OCS use had statistically significantly higher rates of any potential AE compared with patients who did not use OCS (83.5% versus 78.1%), (p < 0.001). Rates of individual potential AEs were also higher in patients who used higher doses of OCS. Patterns of AEs were similar in patients with and those without COPD, with statistically significantly higher overall AE risk and individual risks in high-OCS users. The number of ICS canisters filled was not a significant predictor of AE. CONCLUSION: Patients with asthma who were treated with OCS for ≥30 days per year have a greater overall risk of possible corticosteroid-related AEs compared with those patients with no OCS use, whether or not they had COPD.

Risk adjustment for health care financing in chronic disease: what are we missing by failing to account for disease severity?

BACKGROUND: Adjustment for differing risks among patients is usually incorporated into newer payment approaches, and current risk models rely on age, sex, and diagnosis codes. It is unknown the extent to which controlling additionally for disease severity improves cost prediction. Failure to adjust for within-disease variation may create incentives to avoid sicker patients. We address this issue among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Cost and clinical data were collected prospectively from 1202 COPD patients at Kaiser Permanente. Baseline analysis included age, sex, and diagnosis codes (using the Diagnostic Cost Group Relative Risk Score) in a general linear model predicting total medical costs in the following year. We determined whether adding COPD severity measures-forced expiratory volume in 1 second, 6-Minute Walk Test, dyspnea score, body mass index, and BODE Index (composite of the other 4 measures)-improved predictions. Separately, we examined household income as a cost predictor. RESULTS: Mean costs were $12,334/y. Controlling for Relative Risk Score, each ½ SD worsening in COPD severity factor was associated with $629 to $1135 in increased annual costs (all P<0.01). The lowest stratum of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (<30% normal) predicted $4098 (95% confidence interval, $576-$8773) additional costs. Household income predicted excess costs when added to the baseline model (P=0.038), but this became nonsignificant when also incorporating the BODE Index. CONCLUSIONS: Disease severity measures explain significant cost variations beyond current risk models, and adding them to such models appears important to fairly compensate organizations that accept responsibility for sicker COPD patients. Appropriately controlling for disease severity also accounts for costs otherwise associated with lower socioeconomic status.