Benefit of switching to mepolizumab from omalizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma based on patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The OSMO study assessed the efficacy of switching to mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma that was uncontrolled whilst receiving omalizumab. The objective of this analysis was to assess the proportion of patients achieving pre-defined improvements in up to four efficacy outcomes and the relationship between patient baseline characteristics and treatment response. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of OSMO study data (GSK ID:204471; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02654145). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, other controller(s) and omalizumab subcutaneously (≥ 4 months) were switched to mepolizumab 100 mg administered subcutaneously. Endpoints included the proportion of responders-i.e. patients achieving a pre-defined clinical improvement in ≥ 1 of the following outcomes: (1) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score (≥ 0.5-points), (2) St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥ 4-points), (3) pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1; ≥ 100 mL), all at Week 32, and (4) annualised rate of clinically significant exacerbations (≥ 50% reduction). RESULTS: Of the 145 patients included, 94%, 83%, 63% and 31% were responders for ≥ 1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3 and 4 outcomes, respectively; 75% and 78% were ACQ-5 and SGRQ score responders, and 50% and 69% were FEV1 and exacerbation responders. Subgroup analyses demonstrated improvements irrespective of baseline blood eosinophil count, prior omalizumab treatment regimen/duration, comorbidities, prior exacerbation history, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, ACQ-5 and SGRQ scores, and body weight/body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: After switching to mepolizumab, almost all patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma on omalizumab achieved a beneficial response in ≥ 1 clinical outcome. Improvements were observed regardless of baseline characteristics. Trial registration This manuscript is a post hoc analysis of data from the OSMO study. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654145. Registered January 13, 2016.

Severe asthma: adding new evidence - Latin American Thoracic Society.

This document constitutes a summary of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) prepared at the initiative of the Latin American Thoracic Society (ALAT). Due to new evidence in the treatment of severe asthma, it was agreed to select six clinical questions, and the corresponding recommendations are provided herein. After considering the quality of the evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable impacts and the feasibility and acceptance of procedures, the following recommendations were established. 1) We do not recommend the use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus formoterol as rescue medication in the treatment of severe asthma. 2) We suggest performing many more high-quality randomised studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tiotropium in patients with severe asthma. 3) Omalizumab is recommended in patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma with serum IgE levels above 30 IU. 4) Anti-interleukin (IL)-5 drugs are recommended in patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (cut-off values above 150 cells·µL-1 for mepolizumab and above 400 cells·µL-1 for reslizumab). 5) Benralizumab is recommended in adult patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (cut-off values above 300 cells·µL-1). 6) Dupilumab is recommended in adult patients with severe uncontrolled allergic and eosinophilic asthma and in adult patients with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma.

Incorporando nuevas evidencias sobre medicamentos inhalados en la EPOC. Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax (ALAT) 2019 / Incorporating New Evidence on Inhaled Medications in COPD. The Latin American Chest Association (ALAT) 2019

Este documento sobre EPOC de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax (ALAT) 2019 analiza las nuevas evidencias de medicación inhalada utilizando la metodología de preguntas clínicas en formato PICO. Surgen de este análisis los siguientes puntos claves: 1) no hay evidencia que compare el uso de broncodilatadores de acción corta vs. larga en pacientes con EPOC leve; en aquellos con EPOC moderada-grave existe mayor beneficio de los broncodilatadores de acción larga, 2) beneficios similares de la monoterapia con antimuscarínicos de acción prolongada (LAMA) y la terapia combinada β2-agonistas de acción larga/corticosteroides inhalados (LABA/CIS), asociada esta última a mayor riesgo de neumonía, 3) mayores beneficios del LABA/LAMA en función pulmonar y riesgo de exacerbación vs. LABA/CIS (esta última con mayor riesgo de neumonía) y 4) mayores beneficios de la terapia LAMA/LABA/CIS comparada con LABA/LAMA sobre el riesgo de exacerbaciones moderadas-severas. En relación al rol de los eosinófilos para guiar el uso de los CIS: debe considerarse su retiro cuando la indicación inicial fue errada o sin respuesta, en pacientes con efectos secundarios como neumonía, y en aquellos con bajo riesgo de exacerbación con recuento de eosinófilos en sangre < 300 cél/μl. Incorporando estas evidencias según la gravedad de la obstrucción, síntomas y riesgo de exacerbaciones se genera un algoritmo para el uso de medicación inhalada en la EPOC

This document on COPD from the Latin American Chest Association (ALAT-2019) uses PICO methodology to analyze new evidence on inhaled medication and answer clinical questions. The following key points emerged from this analysis: 1) evidence is lacking on the comparison of short-acting vs. long-acting bronchodilators in patients with mild COPD; patients with moderate-to-severe COPD obtain greater benefit from long-acting bronchodilators; 2) the benefits of monotherapy with long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) and combined therapy with long-acting β2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) are similar, although the latter is associated with a greater risk of pneumonia; 3) LABA/LAMA offer greater benefits in terms of lung function and risk of exacerbation than LABA/ICS (the latter involve an increased risk of pneumonia), 4) LAMA/LABA/ICS have greater therapeutic benefits than LABA/LAMA on the risk of moderate-severe exacerbations. With regard to the role of eosinophils in guiding the use of ICS, ICS withdrawal must be considered when the initial indication was wrong or no response is elicited, in patients with side effects such as pneumonia, and in patients with a low risk of exacerbation and an eosinophil blood count of <300 cells/μl. All this evidence, categorized according to the severity of the obstruction, symptoms, and risk of exacerbations, has been used to generate an algorithm for the use of inhaled medication in COPD

Incorporating New Evidence on Inhaled Medications in COPD. The Latin American Chest Association (ALAT) 2019. / Incorporando nuevas evidencias sobre medicamentos inhalados en la EPOC. Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax (ALAT) 2019.

This document on COPD from the Latin American Chest Association (ALAT-2019) uses PICO methodology to analyze new evidence on inhaled medication and answer clinical questions. The following key points emerged from this analysis: 1) evidence is lacking on the comparison of short-acting vs. long-acting bronchodilators in patients with mild COPD; patients with moderate-to-severe COPD obtain greater benefit from long-acting bronchodilators; 2) the benefits of monotherapy with long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) and combined therapy with long-acting ß2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) are similar, although the latter is associated with a greater risk of pneumonia; 3) LABA/LAMA offer greater benefits in terms of lung function and risk of exacerbation than LABA/ICS (the latter involve an increased risk of pneumonia), 4) LAMA/LABA/ICS have greater therapeutic benefits than LABA/LAMA on the risk of moderate-severe exacerbations. With regard to the role of eosinophils in guiding the use of ICS, ICS withdrawal must be considered when the initial indication was wrong or no response is elicited, in patients with side effects such as pneumonia, and in patients with a low risk of exacerbation and an eosinophil blood count of <300 cells/µl. All this evidence, categorized according to the severity of the obstruction, symptoms, and risk of exacerbations, has been used to generate an algorithm for the use of inhaled medication in COPD.

The clinical benefit of mepolizumab replacing omalizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Mepolizumab and omalizumab are treatments for distinct but overlapping severe asthma phenotypes. OBJECTIVE: To assess if patients eligible for both biologics but not optimally controlled with omalizumab experience improved asthma control when switched directly to mepolizumab. METHODS: OSMO was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, 32-week trial in patients with ≥2 asthma exacerbations in the year prior to enrollment, despite receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and other controller(s), plus omalizumab (≥4 months). At baseline, patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL (or ≥300 cells/µL in the prior year) and an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score ≥1.5 discontinued omalizumab and immediately commenced mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Endpoints included change from baseline in ACQ-5 score (primary), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and the proportions of ACQ-5 and SGRQ responders, all at Week 32, and the annualized exacerbation rate over the study period. RESULTS: At Week 32 (intent-to-treat population [n = 145]), the least squares (LS) mean changes (standard error [SE]) in ACQ-5 and SGRQ total scores were -1.45 (0.107) and -19.0 (1.64) points; with 77% and 79% of patients achieving the minimum clinically important differences (ACQ-5: ≥0.5 points; SGRQ: ≥4 points), respectively. The annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations was 1.18 events/year, a 64% reduction from 3.26 events/year during the previous year. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were consistent with previous trials. CONCLUSION: After directly switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab, patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma experienced clinically significant improvements in asthma control, health status, and exacerbation rate, with no tolerability issues reported.

Patient perception of Breezhaler® and Ellipta® device feedback mechanisms in COPD: The ADVANTAGE Study.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the ADVANTAGE study was to compare device-naïve chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients' perception of the Breezhaler® and Ellipta® devices' feedback mechanisms of dose delivery confirmation. The secondary objective was to assess comfort with the inhalers' mouthpiece in terms of ease to form a tight seal around the mouthpiece. These objectives were achieved by using a novel, patient perception of inhaler questionnaire developed and tested during cognitive interviews of patients by Evidera, London, United Kingdom. METHODS: Ten COPD patients were interviewed to collect feedback on the interpretation, relevance and language of the questionnaire. This questionnaire was then used in ADVANTAGE to compare patients' perception (n = 100) of both devices. Patients completed the questionnaire after a single inhalation of placebo through each inhaler. RESULTS: Using the final questionnaire, patients reported being more confident of the feedback mechanism of Breezhaler than that of the Ellipta device (mean score 4.3 versus 3.6 respectively, estimated difference [95% CI]: 0.75 [0.51, 0.99], p < .0001). Patients also reported better comfort (ease to form a tight seal with the lips) with the Breezhaler mouthpiece than the Ellipta mouthpiece (mean score 4.3 versus 3.9 respectively, estimated difference [95% CI]: 0.41 [0.21, 0.61], p < .0001). There were no safety concerns associated with either device. CONCLUSION: COPD patients showed greater preference for the Breezhaler over the Ellipta inhaler for confidence of dose delivery and comfort of the mouthpiece. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02551224).

Pharmacological management of progressive-fibrosing interstitial lung diseases: a review of the current evidence.

A proportion of patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are at risk of developing a progressive-fibrosing phenotype, which is associated with a deterioration in lung function and early mortality. In addition to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), fibrosing ILDs that may present a progressive phenotype include idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, connective tissue disease-associated ILDs, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, ILDs related to other occupational exposures and sarcoidosis. Corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive therapies are sometimes prescribed to patients with these diseases. However, this treatment regimen may not be effective, adequate on its own or well tolerated, suggesting that there is a pressing need for efficacious and better tolerated therapies. Currently, the only approved treatments to slow disease progression in patients with IPF are nintedanib and pirfenidone. Similarities in pathobiological mechanisms leading to fibrosis between IPF and other ILDs that may present a progressive-fibrosing phenotype provide a rationale to suggest that nintedanib and pirfenidone may be therapeutic options for patients with the latter diseases.This review provides an overview of the therapeutic options currently available for patients with fibrosing ILDs, including fibrosing ILDs that may present a progressive phenotype, and explores the status of the randomised controlled trials that are underway to determine the efficacy and safety of nintedanib and pirfenidone.

Broncodilatadores agonistas b2 de acción larga durante las exacerbaciones de la EPOC / Agonist bronchodilators long-acting b2 during Exacerbations of COPD

En el número 2 del volumen 15 de la RAMR, J Furcada y colaboradores publican un análisis acerca del rol que ocupan los LABAs en las exacerbaciones de Epoc, en las recomendaciones de las Guías de Manejo de la Epoc. Sin duda el tema es muy interesante y atractivo, y constituye una incógnita en el conocimiento sobre el manejo de las exacerbaciones de Epoc y sobre el papel de estos fármacos. Adicionalmente, se plantea el interrogante con más fuerza debido a que este grupo de drogas es el principal tratamiento de la Epoc estable y que han demostrado que impacta favorablemente en el manejo de esta enfermedad. Mejora la obstrucción, la calidad de vida, y la reducción de las exacerbaciones, incluyendo aquellas que requieren hospitalización, con un perfil de seguridad adecuado; y con ventajas con respecto a sus predecesores, los SABAS. Por otra parte, la mayoría de los pacientes que tienen acceso a un correcto manejo de la enfermedad y concurren a la sala de emergencias por exacerbación los vienen recibiendo. Los interrogantes no hallan una respuesta basada en la evidencia ni en el consenso de las diferentes guías sobre el manejo de la enfermedad, pero podemos evaluar antecedentes en los trabajos de Mario Cazzola y Björn Stälberg, que comparaban a los corticoides orales con los inhalados, siempre en ambos grupos acompañados por formoterol, o sea siempre utilizaban LABAS y a dosis variables

Guía de práctica clínica de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) ALAT-2014: preguntas y respuestas / ALAT-2014 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical practice guidelines: questions and answers

La guía de práctica clínica de enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) ALAT 2014 fue elaborada contestando preguntas clínicas en formato PICO a través del análisis de evidencias sobre factores de riesgo, búsqueda de casos, evaluación pronóstica, tratamiento y exacerbaciones. La evidencia indica que existen factores de riesgo diferentes al tabaco, diferencias según el género, soporta la búsqueda activa de casos en población de riesgo y el valor predictivo de los índices multidimensionales. En la EPOC estable se encuentran similares beneficios de la monoterapia broncodilatadora (LAMA o LABA) sobre la disnea, función pulmonar o calidad de vida, y mayor efectividad del LAMA para prevenir exacerbaciones. La doble terapia broncodilatadora tiene mayores beneficios comparada con la monoterapia. La eficacia de la terapia con LAMA y la combinación LABA/CI es similar, con mayor riesgo de neumonía con la combinación LABA/CI. Existe limitada información sobre la eficacia y la seguridad de la triple terapia. La evidencia soporta el uso de vacunación contra la influenza en todos los pacientes y contra neumococo en < 65 años y/o con obstrucción grave. Los antibióticos profilácticos pueden disminuir la frecuencia de exacerbaciones en pacientes de riesgo. Está justificado el uso de corticosteroides sistémicos y antibióticos en exacerbaciones que requieren tratamiento intrahospitalario y en algunas de tratamiento ambulatorio

ALAT-2014 COPD Clinical Practice Guidelines used clinical questions in PICO format to compile evidence related to risk factors, COPD screening, disease prognosis, treatment and exacerbations. Evidence reveals the existence of risk factors for COPD other than tobacco, as well as gender differences in disease presentation. It shows the benefit of screening in an at-risk population, and the predictive value use of multidimensional prognostic indexes. In stable COPD, similar benefits in dyspnea, pulmonary function and quality of life are achieved with LAMA or LABA long-acting bronchodilators, whereas LAMA is more effective in preventing exacerbations. Dual bronchodilator therapy has more benefits than monotherapy. LAMA and combination LABA/IC are similarly effective, but there is an increased risk of pneumonia with LABA/IC. Data on the efficacy and safety of triple therapy are scarce. Evidence supports influenza vaccination in all patients and anti-pneumococcal vaccination in patients <65years of age and/or with severe airflow limitation. Antibiotic prophylaxis may decrease exacerbation frequency in patients at risk. The use of systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics are justified in exacerbations requiring hospitalization and in some patients managed in an outpatient setting

Development of a simple binary response questionnaire to identify airflow obstruction in a smoking population in Argentina.

The CODE questionnaire (COPD detection questionnaire), a simple, binary response scale (yes/no), screening questionnaire, was developed for the identification of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a survey of 468 subjects with a smoking history in 10 public hospitals in Argentina. Patients with a previous diagnosis of COPD, asthma and other respiratory illness were excluded. Items that measured conceptual domains in terms of characteristics of symptoms, smoking history and demographics data were considered. 96 (20.5%) subjects had a diagnosis of COPD according to the 2010 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease strategy document. The variables selected for the final questionnaire were based on univariate and multivariate analyses and clinical criteria. Finally, we selected the presence or absence of six variables (age ≥50 years, smoking history ≥30 pack-years, male sex, chronic cough, chronic phlegm and dyspnoea). Of patients without any of these six variables (0 points), none had COPD. The ability of the CODE questionnaire to discriminate between subjects with and without COPD was good (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75). Higher scores were associated with a greater probability of COPD. The CODE questionnaire is a brief, accurate questionnaire that can identify smoking individuals likely to have COPD.

ALAT-2014 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Clinical Practice Guidelines: questions and answers.

ALAT-2014 COPD Clinical Practice Guidelines used clinical questions in PICO format to compile evidence related to risk factors, COPD screening, disease prognosis, treatment and exacerbations. Evidence reveals the existence of risk factors for COPD other than tobacco, as well as gender differences in disease presentation. It shows the benefit of screening in an at-risk population, and the predictive value use of multidimensional prognostic indexes. In stable COPD, similar benefits in dyspnea, pulmonary function and quality of life are achieved with LAMA or LABA long-acting bronchodilators, whereas LAMA is more effective in preventing exacerbations. Dual bronchodilator therapy has more benefits than monotherapy. LAMA and combination LABA/IC are similarly effective, but there is an increased risk of pneumonia with LABA/IC. Data on the efficacy and safety of triple therapy are scarce. Evidence supports influenza vaccination in all patients and anti-pneumococcal vaccination in patients <65years of age and/or with severe airflow limitation. Antibiotic prophylaxis may decrease exacerbation frequency in patients at risk. The use of systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics are justified in exacerbations requiring hospitalization and in some patients managed in an outpatient setting.

Geographic differences in clinical characteristics and management of COPD: the EPOCA study.

AIMS: Data on differences in clinical characteristics and management of COPD in different countries and settings are limited. We aimed to characterize the profile of patients with COPD in a number of countries and their treatment in order to evaluate adherence to recommendations of international guidelines. METHOD: This was an observational, international, cross-sectional study on patients with physician-diagnosed COPD. Demographic and clinical characteristics, risk factors, and treatment were collected by their physician via an internet web-based questionnaire developed for the study. RESULTS: A total of 77 investigators from 17 countries provided data on 833 patients. The countries with the highest number of patients included were: Argentina (128), Ecuador (134), Spain (162), and Hong Kong (153). Overall, 79.3% were men and 81% former smokers, with a mean FEV1 = 42.7%, ranging from 34.3% in Hong Kong to 58.8% in Ecuador. Patients reported a mean of 1.6 exacerbations the previous year, with this frequency being significantly and negatively correlated with FEV1 (%) (r = -0.256; p < 0.0001). Treatment with short-acting bronchodilators and theophyllines was more frequent in Ecuador and Hong Kong compared with Spain and Argentina, and in patients belonging to lower socioeconomic levels (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Inadequacy of treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and theophyllines was high, with significant differences among countries. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the clinical characteristics and management of COPD were significant across countries. Adherence to international guidelines appears to be low. Efforts should be made to disseminate and adapt guidelines to the socioeconomic reality of different settings.

Sleep disordered breathing and daytime sleepiness are associated with poor academic performance in teenagers. A study using the Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS).

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Inadequate sleep and sleep disordered breathing (SDB) can impair learning skills. Questionnaires used to evaluate sleepiness in adults are usually inadequate for adolescents. We conducted a study to evaluate the performance of a Spanish version of the Pediatric Daytime Sleepiness Scale (PDSS) and to assess the impact of sleepiness and SDB on academic performance. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of students from 7 schools in 4 cities of Argentina. MEASUREMENTS: A questionnaire with a Spanish version of the PDSS was used. Questions on the occurrence of snoring and witnessed apneas were answered by the parents. Mathematics and language grades were used as indicators of academic performance. PARTICIPANTS: The sample included 2,884 students (50% males; age: 13.3 +/- 1.5 years) RESULTS: Response rate was 85%; 678 cases were excluded due to missing data. Half the students slept <9 h per night on weekdays. The mean PDSS value was 15.74 +/- 5.93. Parental reporting of snoring occurred in 511 subjects (23%); snoring was occasional in 14% and frequent in 9%. Apneas were witnessed in 237 cases (11%), being frequent in 4% and occasional in 7%. Frequent snorers had higher mean PDSS scores than occasional or nonsnorers (18 +/- 5, 15.7 +/- 6 and 15.5 +/- 6, respectively; P < 0.001). Reported snoring or apneas and the PDSS were significant univariate predictors of failure and remained significant in multivariate logistic regression analysis after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, specific school attended, and sleep habits. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient hours of sleep were prevalent in this population. The Spanish version of the PDSS was a reliable tool in middle-school-aged children. Reports of snoring or witnessed apneas and daytime sleepiness as measured by PDSS were independent predictors of poor academic performance.