Association between pre-biologic T2-biomarker combinations and response to biologics in patients with severe asthma.

Background: To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials. Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life. Methods: This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers. Results: Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE. Conclusions: The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.

Longitudinal patterns of intermittent oral corticosteroid therapy for asthma in the United Kingdom.

Background: Increasing frequency of intermittent oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescription and cumulative OCS exposure increase the risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Objective: We sought to describe the evolution and trajectory of intermittent OCS prescription patterns in patients with asthma and investigate risk factors independently associated with transitioning to a frequent prescription pattern. Methods: This historical cohort study included patients with active asthma managed in UK primary care and included in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD; opcrd.co.uk). Intermittent OCS prescription patterns were categorized as sporadic, infrequent, moderately frequent, or frequent. Prescription pattern sequences were described for those who had a frequent sequence in their final year of prescribing. We examined associations between OCS prescription pattern and the hazard of transitioning into a frequent intermittent OCS prescription pattern using multivariable Cox regression with a 10-year look-back period. Results: Of 105,229 patients with intermittent OCS prescriptions, 57.1% (n = 60,083) had a frequent OCS prescription pattern at some point. Irrespective of baseline pattern, most patients transitioned to frequent prescription during the look back. The strongest risk factors were a more frequent prescription pattern at the start of look-back period, a lower percentage peak expiratory flow rate, and higher Global Initiative for Asthma treatment step. Older age, female sex, obesity, and active smoking were also associated with a higher risk of transitioning. Conclusion: Our findings help identify those most at risk of transitioning to frequent intermittent OCS receipt and encourage earlier intervention with OCS-sparing treatments.

The Association Between Short-Acting ß2-Agonist Over-Prescription, and Patient-Reported Acquisition and Use on Asthma Control and Exacerbations: Data from Australia.

INTRODUCTION: In Australia, short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA) are available both over the counter (OTC) and on prescription. This ease of access may impact SABA use in the Australian population. Our aim was to assess patterns and outcome associations of prescribed, acquired OTC and reported use of SABA by Australians with asthma. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study, using data derived from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) and patient completed questionnaires within Optimum Patient Care Research Database Australia (OPCRDA). A total of 720 individuals aged ≥ 12 years with an asthma diagnosis in their EMRs and receiving asthma therapy were included. The annual number of SABA inhalers authorised on prescription, acquired OTC and reported, and the association with self-reported exacerbations and asthma control were investigated. RESULTS: 92.9% (n = 380/409) of individuals issued with SABA prescription were authorised ≥ 3 inhalers annually, although this differed from self-reported usage. Of individuals reporting SABA use (n = 546) in the last 12 months, 37.0% reported using ≥ 3 inhalers. These patients who reported SABA overuse experienced 2.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.73-3.70) times more severe exacerbations and were 4.51 times (95% CI 3.13-6.55) more likely to have poor asthma control than those who reported using 1-2 SABA inhalers. Patients who did not receive SABA on prescription (43.2%; n = 311/720) also experienced 2.71 (95% CI 1.07-7.26) times more severe exacerbations than those prescribed 1-2 inhalers. Of these patients, 38.9% reported using OTC SABA and other prescription medications, 26.4% reported using SABA OTC as their only asthma medication, 13.2% were prescribed other therapies but not SABA OTC and 14.5% were not using any medication. CONCLUSION: Both self-reported SABA overuse and zero SABA prescriptions were associated with poor asthma outcomes. The disconnect between prescribing authorisation, OTC availability and actual use, make it difficult for clinicians to quantify SABA use.

Analysis of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adult patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Investigation for the presence of asthma comorbidities is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma because their presence can complicate asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To understand the prevalence and pattern of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adults with severe asthma and their association with asthma-related outcomes. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry from 22 countries. A total of 30 comorbidities were identified and categorized a priori as any of the following: (1) potentially type 2-related comorbidities, (2) potentially oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related comorbidities, or (3) comorbidities mimicking or aggravating asthma. The association between comorbidities and asthma-related outcomes was investigated using multivariable models adjusted for country, age at enrollment, and sex (ie male or female). RESULTS: Of the 11,821 patients, 69%, 67%, and 55% had at least 1 potentially type 2-related, potentially OCS-related, or mimicking or aggravating comorbidities, respectively; 57% had 3 or more comorbidities, and 33% had comorbidities in all 3 categories. Patients with allergic rhinitis, nasal polyposis, and chronic rhinosinusitis experienced 1.12 (P = .003), 1.16 (P < .001), and 1.29 times (P < .001) more exacerbations per year, respectively, than those without. Patients with nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis were 40% and 46% more likely (P < .001), respectively, to have received long-term (LT) OCS. All assessed potential OCS-related comorbidities (except obesity) were associated with a greater likelihood of LTOCS use (odds ratios [ORs]: 1.23-2.77) and, except for dyslipidemia, with a greater likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.29-1.68). All mimicking or aggravating comorbidities assessed were associated with more exacerbations (1.24-1.68 times more), all (except bronchiectasis) with increased likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.57-1.81), and all (except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with increased likelihood of LTOCS use (ORs: 1.37-1.57). A greater number of comorbidities was associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: In a global study, comorbidity or multimorbidity is reported in most adults with severe asthma and is associated with poorer asthma-related outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The International Severe Asthma Registry database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance [ENCEPP]/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EMA 2014; EUPAS44024) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulations, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=48848). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1121).

Association Between T2-related Comorbidities and Effectiveness of Biologics in Severe Asthma.

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV1% predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV1% predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.

Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma. METHODS: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%). RESULTS: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment. CONCLUSION: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).

Adult Severe Asthma Registries: A Global and Growing Inventory.

Aim: The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org/) uses standardised variables to enable multi-country and adequately powered research in severe asthma. This study aims to look at the data countries within ISAR and non-ISAR countries reported collecting that enable global research that support individual country interests. Methods: Registries were identified by online searches and approaching severe asthma experts. Participating registries provided data collection specifications or confirmed variables collected. Core variables (results from ISAR's Delphi study), steroid-related comorbidity variables, biologic safety variables (serious infection, anaphylaxis, and cancer), COVID-19 variables and additional variables (not belonging to the aforementioned categories) that registries reported collecting were summarised. Results: Of the 37 registries identified, 26 were ISAR affiliates and 11 non-ISAR affiliates. Twenty-five ISAR-registries and 4 non-ISAR registries reported collecting >90% of the 65 core variables. Twenty-three registries reported collecting all optional steroid-related comorbidity variables. Twenty-nine registries reported collecting all optional safety variables. Ten registries reported collecting COVID-19 variables. Twenty-four registries reported collecting additional variables including data from asthma questionnaires (10 Asthma Control Questionnaire, 20 Asthma Control Test, 11 Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and 4 EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level Questionnaire). Eight registries are linked to databases such as electronic medical records and national claims or disease databases. Conclusion: Standardised data collection has enabled individual severe asthma registries to collect unified data and increase statistical power for severe asthma research irrespective of ISAR affiliations.

Patterns of care in the management of high-risk COPD in the US (2011-2019): an observational study for the CONQUEST quality improvement program.

Background: In this study, we compare management of patients with high-risk chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States to national and international guidelines and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST). Methods: Patients were identified from the DARTNet Practice Performance Registry and categorized into three high-risk cohorts in each year from 2011 to 2019: newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, and patients with potential undiagnosed COPD. Patients were considered high-risk if they had a history of exacerbations or likely exacerbations (respiratory consult with prescribed medication). Descriptive statistics for 2019 are reported, along with annual trends. Findings: In 2019, 10% (n = 16,610/167,197) of patients met high-risk criteria. Evidence of spirometry for diagnosis was low; in 2019, 81% (n = 1228/1523) of patients newly diagnosed at high-risk had no record of spirometry/peak expiratory flow in the 12 months pre- or post-diagnosis and 43% (n = 651/1523) had no record of COPD symptom review. Among those newly and already diagnosed at high-risk, 52% (n = 4830/9350) had no evidence of COPD medication. Interpretation: Findings suggest inconsistent adherence to evidence-based guidelines, and opportunities to improve identification, documentation of services, assessment, therapeutic intervention, and follow-up of patients with COPD. Funding: This study was conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and was partially funded by Optimum Patient Care Global and AstraZeneca Ltd. No funding was received by the Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI) for its contribution.

Impact of Initiating Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma on Long-Term Oral Corticosteroids or Frequent Rescue Steroids (GLITTER): Data From the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS. METHODS: This was a propensity score-matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization.

Identification of key opportunities for optimising the management of high-risk COPD patients in the UK using the CONQUEST quality standards: an observational longitudinal study.

Background: This study compared management of high-risk COPD patients in the UK to national and international management recommendations and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST). The primary comparison was in 2019, but trends from 2000 to 2019 were also examined. Methods: Patients identified in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database were categorised as newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, and potential COPD (smokers having exacerbation-like events). High-risk patients had a history of ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbations in the previous 12 months. Findings: For diagnosed patients, the median time between diagnosis and first meeting the high-risk criteria was 617 days (Q1-Q3: 3246). The use of spirometry for diagnosis increased dramatically after 2004 before plateauing and falling in recent years. In 2019, 41% (95% CI 39-44%; n = 550/1343) of newly diagnosed patients had no record of spirometry in the previous year, and 45% (95% CI 43-48%; n = 352/783) had no record of a COPD medication review within 6 months of treatment initiation or change. In 2019, 39% (n = 6893/17,858) of already diagnosed patients had no consideration of exacerbation rates, 46% (95% CI 45-47%; n = 4942/10,725) were not offered or referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, and 41% (95% CI 40-42%; n = 3026/7361) had not had a COPD review within 6 weeks of respiratory hospitalization. Interpretation: Opportunities for early diagnosis of COPD patients at high risk of exacerbations are being missed. Newly and already diagnosed patients at high-risk are not being assessed or treated promptly. There is substantial scope to improve the assessment and treatment optimisation of these patients. Funding: This study is conducted by the Observational & Pragmatic Research International Ltd and was co-funded by Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. No funding was received by the Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI) for its contribution.

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.

Asthma exacerbations are associated with a decline in lung function: a longitudinal population-based study.

RATIONALE: Progressive lung function (LF) decline in patients with asthma contributes to worse outcomes. Asthma exacerbations are thought to contribute to this decline; however, evidence is limited with mixed results. METHODS: This historical cohort study of a broad asthma patient population in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database, examined asthma patients with 3+eligible post-18th birthday peak expiratory flow rate (PEF) records (primary analysis) or records of forced expiratory flow in 1 s (FEV1) (sensitivity analysis). Adjusted linear growth models tested the association between mean annual exacerbation rate (AER) and LF trajectory. RESULTS: We studied 1 09 182 patients with follow-up ranging from 5 to 50 years, of which 75 280 had data for all variables included in the adjusted analyses. For each additional exacerbation, an estimated additional -1.34 L/min PEF per year (95% CI -1.23 to -1.50) were lost. Patients with AERs >2/year and aged 18-24 years at baseline lost an additional -5.95 L/min PEF/year (95% CI -8.63 to -3.28) compared with those with AER 0. These differences in the rate of LF decline between AER groups became progressively smaller as age at baseline increased. The results using FEV1 were consistent with the above. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the largest nationwide cohort of its kind and demonstrates that asthma exacerbations are associated with faster LF decline. This was more prominent in younger patients but was evident in older patients when it was related to lower starting LF, suggesting a persistent deteriorating phenotype that develops in adulthood over time. Earlier intervention with appropriate management in younger patients with asthma could be of value to prevent excessive LF decline.

Characterization of Patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry with High Steroid Exposure Who Did or Did Not Initiate Biologic Therapy.

Background: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics. Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson's chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons. Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/µL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p<0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147). Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.

Real World Biologic Use and Switch Patterns in Severe Asthma: Data from the International Severe Asthma Registry and the US CHRONICLE Study.

INTRODUCTION: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors. METHODS: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015-2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018-2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups. RESULTS: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti-IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti-IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization. CONCLUSION: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.

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.

CONQUEST Quality Standards: For the Collaboration on Quality Improvement Initiative for Achieving Excellence in Standards of COPD Care.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are managed predominantly in primary care. However, key opportunities to optimize treatment are often not realized due to unrecognized disease and delayed implementation of appropriate interventions for both diagnosed and undiagnosed individuals. The COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST) is the first-of-its-kind, collaborative, interventional COPD registry. It comprises an integrated quality improvement program focusing on patients (diagnosed and undiagnosed) at a modifiable and higher risk of COPD exacerbations. The first step in CONQUEST was the development of quality standards (QS). The QS will be imbedded in routine primary and secondary care, and are designed to drive patient-centered, targeted, risk-based assessment and management optimization. Our aim is to provide an overview of the CONQUEST QS, including how they were developed, as well as the rationale for, and evidence to support, their inclusion in healthcare systems. Methods: The QS were developed (between November 2019 and December 2020) by the CONQUEST Global Steering Committee, including 11 internationally recognized experts with a specialty and research focus in COPD. The process included an extensive literature review, generation of QS draft wording, three iterative rounds of review, and consensus. Results: Four QS were developed: 1) identification of COPD target population, 2) assessment of disease and quantification of future risk, 3) non-pharmacological and pharmacological intervention, and 4) appropriate follow-up. Each QS is followed by a rationale statement and a summary of current guidelines and research evidence relating to the standard and its components. Conclusion: The CONQUEST QS represent an important step in our aim to improve care for patients with COPD in primary and secondary care. They will help to transform the patient journey, by encouraging early intervention to identify, assess, optimally manage and followup COPD patients with modifiable high risk of future exacerbations.

Asthma Phenotyping in Primary Care: Applying the International Severe Asthma Registry Eosinophil Phenotype Algorithm Across All Asthma Severities.

BACKGROUND: We developed an eosinophil phenotype gradient algorithm and applied it to a large severe asthma cohort (International Severe Asthma Registry). OBJECTIVE: We sought to reapply this algorithm in a UK primary care asthma cohort, quantify the eosinophilic phenotype, and assess the relationship between the likelihood of an eosinophilic phenotype and asthma severity/health care resource use (HCRU). METHODS: Patients age 13 years and older with active asthma and blood eosinophil count or 1 or greater, who were included from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, were categorized according to the likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using the International Severe Asthma Registry gradient eosinophilic algorithm. Patient demographic, clinical and HCRU characteristics were described for each phenotype. RESULTS: Of 241,006 patients, 50.3%, 22.2%, and 21.9% most likely (grade 3), likely (grade 2), and least likely (grade 1), respectively, had an eosinophilic phenotype, and 5.6% had a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Compared with patients with noneosinophilic asthma, those most likely to have an eosinophilic phenotype tended to have more comorbidities (percentage with Charlson comorbidity index of ≥2: 28.2% vs 6.9%) and experienced more asthma attacks (percentage with one or more attack: 24.8% vs 15.3%). These patients were also more likely to have asthma that was difficult to treat (31.1% vs 18.3%), to receive more intensive treatment (percentage on Global Initiative for Asthma 2020 step 4 or 5: 44.2% vs 27.5%), and greater HCRU (eg, 10.8 vs 7.9 general practitioner all-cause consultations per year). CONCLUSIONS: The eosinophilic asthma phenotype predominates in primary care and is associated with greater asthma severity and HCRU. These patients may benefit from earlier and targeted asthma therapy.

Eosinophilic and Noneosinophilic Asthma: An Expert Consensus Framework to Characterize Phenotypes in a Global Real-Life Severe Asthma Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Phenotypic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma are not well characterized in global, real-life severe asthma cohorts. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the prevalence of eosinophilic and noneosinophilic phenotypes in the population with severe asthma, and can these phenotypes be differentiated by clinical and biomarker variables? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an historical registry study. Adult patients with severe asthma and available blood eosinophil count (BEC) from 11 countries enrolled in the International Severe Asthma Registry (January 1, 2015-September 30, 2019) were categorized according to likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using a predefined gradient eosinophilic algorithm based on highest BEC, long-term oral corticosteroid use, elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide, nasal polyps, and adult-onset asthma. Demographic and clinical characteristics were defined at baseline (ie, 1 year before or closest to date of BEC). RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred sixteen patients with prospective data were included; 83.8% were identified as most likely (grade 3), 8.3% were identified as likely (grade 2), and 6.3% identified as least likely (grade 1) to have an eosinophilic phenotype, and 1.6% of patients showed a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Eosinophilic phenotype patients (ie, grades 2 or 3) showed later asthma onset (29.1 years vs 6.7 years; P < .001) and worse lung function (postbronchodilator % predicted FEV1, 76.1% vs 89.3%; P = .027) than those with a noneosinophilic phenotype. Patients with noneosinophilic phenotypes were more likely to be women (81.5% vs 62.9%; P = .047), to have eczema (20.8% vs 8.5%; P = .003), and to use anti-IgE (32.1% vs 13.4%; P = .004) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (50.0% vs 28.0%; P = .011) add-on therapy. INTERPRETATION: According to this multicomponent, consensus-driven, and evidence-based eosinophil gradient algorithm (using variables readily accessible in real life), the severe asthma eosinophilic phenotype was more prevalent than previously identified and was phenotypically distinct. This pragmatic gradient algorithm uses variables readily accessible in primary and specialist care, addressing inherent issues of phenotype heterogeneity and phenotype instability. Identification of treatable traits across phenotypes should improve therapeutic precision.