What bothers severe asthma patients most? A paired patient-clinician study across seven European countries.

Introduction: Severe asthma is a complex, multidimensional disease. Optimal treatment, adherence and outcomes require shared decision-making, rooted in mutual understanding between patient and clinician. This study used a novel, patient-centred approach to examine the most bothersome aspects of severe asthma to patients, as seen from both perspectives in asthma registries. Methods: Across seven countries, 126 patients with severe asthma completed an open-ended survey regarding most the bothersome aspect(s) of their asthma. Patients' responses were linked with their treating clinician who also completed a free-text survey about each patient's most bothersome aspect(s). Responses were coded using content analysis, and patient and clinician responses were compared. Finally, asthma registries that are part of the SHARP (Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred) Clinical Research Collaboration were examined to see the extent to which they reflected the most bothersome aspects reported by patients. Results: 88 codes and 10 themes were identified. Clinicians were more focused on direct physical symptoms and were less focused on "holistic" aspects such as the effort required to self-manage the disease. Clinicians accurately identified a most bothersome symptom for 29% of patients. Agreement was particularly low with younger patients and those using oral corticosteroids infrequently. In asthma registries, patient aspects were predominantly represented in questionnaires. Conclusions: Results demonstrated different perspectives and priorities between patients and clinicians, with clinicians more focused on physical aspects. These differences must be considered when treating individual patients, and within multidisciplinary treatment teams. The use of questionnaires that include multifaceted aspects of disease may result in improved asthma research.

Real-world outcomes, treatment patterns and T790M testing rates in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with first-line first- or second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors from the Slovenian cohort of the REFLECT study.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are effective treatments for EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, routine clinical practice is different between countries/institutions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The REFLECT study (NCT04031898) is a retrospective medical chart review that explored real-life treatment and outcomes of EGFRm NSCLC patients receiving first-line (1L) first-/second-generation (1G/2G) EGFR TKIs in 8 countries. This study included adult patients with documented advanced/metastatic EGFRm NSCLC with 1L 1G/2G EGFR TKIs initiated between Jan 2015 - Jun 2018. We reviewed data on clinical characteristics, treatments, EGFR/T790M testing patterns, and survival outcomes. Here, we report data from 120 medical charts in 3 study sites from Slovenia. RESULTS: The Slovenian cohort (median age 70 years, 74% females) received 37% erlotinib, 32% afatinib, 31% gefitinib. At the time of data collection, 94 (78%) discontinuations of 1L TKI, and 89 (74%) progression events on 1L treatment were reported. Among patients progressing on 1L, 73 (82%) were tested for T790M mutation yielding 50 (68%) positive results, and 62 (85%) received 2L treatment. 82% of patients received osimertinib. Attrition rate between 1L and 2L was 10%. The median (95% CI) real-world progression free survival on 1L EGFR TKIs was 15.6 (12.6, 19.2) months; median overall survival (95% CI) was 28.9 (25.0, 34.3) months. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study provides valuable information about 1G/2G EGFR TKIs treatment outcomes and attrition rates in Slovenian EGFRm NSCLC patients. The reduced attrition rate and improved survival outcomes emphasize the importance of 1L treatment decision.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on severe asthma care in Europe: will care change for good?

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put pressure on healthcare services, forcing the reorganisation of traditional care pathways. We investigated how physicians taking care of severe asthma patients in Europe reorganised care, and how these changes affected patient satisfaction, asthma control and future care. Methods: In this European-wide cross-sectional study, patient surveys were sent to patients with a physician-diagnosis of severe asthma, and physician surveys to severe asthma specialists between November 2020 and May 2021. Results: 1101 patients and 268 physicians from 16 European countries contributed to the study. Common physician-reported changes in severe asthma care included use of video/phone consultations (46%), reduced availability of physicians (43%) and change to home-administered biologics (38%). Change to phone/video consultations was reported in 45% of patients, of whom 79% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Of 709 patients on biologics, 24% experienced changes in biologic care, of whom 92% were changed to home-administered biologics and of these 62% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Only 2% reported worsening asthma symptoms associated with changes in biologic care. Many physicians expect continued implementation of video/phone consultations (41%) and home administration of biologics (52%). Conclusions: Change to video/phone consultations and home administration of biologics was common in severe asthma care during the COVID-19 pandemic and was associated with high satisfaction levels in most but not all cases. Many physicians expect these changes to continue in future severe asthma care, though satisfaction levels may change after the pandemic.

Intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib for advanced NSCLC: high proportion of complete remissions and prolonged progression-free survival among patients with EGFR activating mutations.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaco-dynamic separation of cytotoxic and targeted drugs might avoid their mutual antagonistic effect in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were treatment-naive with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. In addition, inclusion was limited to never-smokers or light smokers or, after 2010, to patients with activating epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Treatment started with 3-weekly cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin on days 1, 2 and 4 and erlotinib on days 5 to 15. After 4 to 6 cycles, patients continued with erlotinib maintenance. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were recruited into the trial: 24 prior to 2010 (of whom 9 were later found to be positive for EGFR mutations), and 29 EGFR mutation-positive patients recruited later. Unfavourable prognostic factors included stage IV disease (51 patients - 96%), performance status 2-3 (11 patients - 21%) and brain metastases (15 patients -28%). Grade 4 toxicity included 2 cases of neutropenia and 4 thrombo-embolic events. The 15 EGFR negative patients had 33% objective response rate, median progression-free survival (PFS) 6.0 months and median survival 7.6 months. Among 38 EGFR positive patients, complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were seen in 16 (42.1%) and 17 (44.7%) cases, respectively. PET-CT scanning was performed in 30 patients and confirmed CR and PR in 16 (53.3%) and 9 (30.0%) cases, respectively. Median PFS for EGFR mutated patients was 21.2 months and median survival was 32.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: While patients with EGFR negative tumors do not benefit from addition of erlotinib, the intercalated schedule appears most promising for those with EGFR activating mutations.