Exploring Definitions and Predictors of Severe Asthma Clinical Remission Post-Biologic in Adults.

RATIONALE: There is no consensus on criteria to include in an asthma remission definition in real-life. Factors associated with achieving remission post-biologic-initiation remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the proportion of adults with severe asthma achieving multi-domain-defined remission post-biologic-initiation and identify pre-biologic characteristics associated with achieving remission which may be used to predict it. METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 23 countries from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1-year pre- and post-biologic-initiation. A priori-defined remission cut-offs were: 0 exacerbations/year, no long-term oral corticosteroid (LTOCS), partly/well-controlled asthma, and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second ≥80%. Remission was defined using 2 (exacerbations + LTOCS), 3 (+control or +lung function) and 4 of these domains. The association between pre-biologic characteristics and post-biologic remission was assessed by multivariable analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 50.2%, 33.5%, 25.8% and 20.3% of patients met criteria for 2, 3 (+control), 3 (+lung function) and 4-domain-remission, respectively. The odds of achieving 4-domain remission decreased by 15% for every additional 10-years asthma duration (odds ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.00). The odds of remission increased in those with fewer exacerbations/year, lower LTOCS daily dose, better control and better lung function pre-biologic-initiation. CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 patients achieved 4-domain remission within 1-year of biologic-initiation. Patients with less severe impairment and shorter asthma duration at initiation had a greater chance of achieving remission post-biologic, indicating that biologic treatment should not be delayed if remission is the goal. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

COPD Population in US Primary Care: Data From the Optimum Patient Care DARTNet Research Database and the Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD Registry.

PURPOSE: To describe demographic and clinical characteristics of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients managed in US primary care. METHODS: This was an observational registry study using data from the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Optimum Patient Care DARTNet Research Database from which the Advancing the Patient Experience COPD registry is derived. Registry patients were aged ≥35 years at diagnosis. Electronic health record data were collected from both registries, supplemented with patient-reported information/outcomes from the Advancing the Patient Experience registry from 5 primary care groups in Texas, Ohio, Colorado, New York, and North Carolina (June 2019 through November 2020). RESULTS: Of 17,192 patients included, 1,354 were also in the Advancing the Patient Experience registry. Patients were predominantly female (56%; 9,689/17,192), White (64%; 9,732/15,225), current/ex-smokers (80%; 13,784/17,192), and overweight/obese (69%; 11,628/16,849). The most commonly prescribed maintenance treatments were inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting ß2-agonist (30%) and inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (27%). Although 3% (565/17,192) of patitents were untreated, 9% (1,587/17,192) were on short-acting bronchodilator monotherapy, and 4% (756/17,192) were on inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy. Despite treatment, 38% (6,579/17,192) of patients experienced 1 or more exacerbations in the last 12 months. These findings were mirrored in the Advancing Patient Experience registry with many patients reporting high or very high impact of disease on their health (43%; 580/1,322), a breathlessness score 2 or more (45%; 588/1,315), and 1 or more exacerbation in the last 12 months (50%; 646/1,294). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the high exacerbation, symptom, and treatment burdens experienced by COPD patients managed in US primary care, and the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to support decision making at the primary care level.

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.

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.

Cluster Analysis of Inflammatory Biomarker Expression in the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Allergy, eosinophilic inflammation, and epithelial dysregulation are implicated in severe asthma pathogenesis. OBJECTIVE: We characterized biomarker expression in adults with severe asthma. METHODS: Within the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR), we analyzed data from 10 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia, with prespecified thresholds for biomarker positivity (serum IgE ≥ 75 kU/L, blood eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL, and FeNO ≥ 25 ppb), and with hierarchical cluster analysis using biomarkers as continuous variables. RESULTS: Of 1,175 patients; 64% were female, age (mean ± SD) 53 ± 15 years, body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 8, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) predicted 72% ± 20%. By prespecified thresholds, 59% were IgE positive, 57% eosinophil positive, and 58% FeNO positive. There was substantial inflammatory biomarker overlap; 59% were positive for either 2 or 3 biomarkers. Five distinct clusters were identified: cluster 1 (61%, low-to-medium biomarkers) comprised highly symptomatic, older females with elevated BMI and frequent exacerbations; cluster 2 (18%, elevated eosinophils and FeNO) older females with lower BMI and frequent exacerbations; cluster 3 (14%, extremely high FeNO) older, highly symptomatic, lower BMI, and preserved lung function; cluster 4 (6%, extremely high IgE) younger, long duration of asthma, elevated BMI, and poor lung function; cluster 5 (1.2%, extremely high eosinophils) younger males with low BMI, poor lung function, and high burden of sinonasal disease and polyposis. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant overlap of biomarker positivity in severe asthma. Distinct clusters according to biomarker expression exhibit unique clinical characteristics, suggesting the occurrence of discrete patterns of underlying inflammatory pathway activation and providing pathogenic insights relevant to the era of monoclonal biologics.

Advancing the Patient EXperience (APEX) in COPD Registry: Study Design and Strengths.

The Advancing the Patient Experience (APEX) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) registry (https://www.apexcopd.org/) is the first primary care health system-based COPD registry in the United States. While its ultimate goal is to improve the care of patients diagnosed with COPD, the registry is also designed to describe real-life experiences of people with COPD, track key outcomes longitudinally, and assess the effectiveness of interventions. It will retrospectively and prospectively collect information from 3000 patients enrolled in 5 health care organizations. Information will be obtained from electronic health records, and from extended annual and brief questionnaires completed by patients before clinic visits. Core variables to be collected into the APEX COPD registry were agreed on by Delphi consensus and fall into 3 domains: demographics, COPD monitoring, and treatment. Main strengths of the registry include: 1) its size and scope (in terms of patient numbers, geographic spread and use of multiple information sources including patient-reported information); 2) collection of variables which are clinically relevant and practical to collect within primary care; 3) use of electronic data capture systems to ensure high-quality data and minimization of data-entry requirements; 4) inclusion of clinical, database development, management and communication experts; 5) regular sharing of key findings, both at international/national congresses and in peer-reviewed publications; and 6) a robust organizational structure to ensure continuance of the registry, and that research outputs are ethical, relevant and continue to bring value to both patients and physicians.

Development of the Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD Registry: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly managed by family physicians, but little is known about specifics of management and how this may be improved. The Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD (APEX COPD) registry will be the first U.S. primary care, health system-based registry following patients diagnosed with COPD longitudinally, using a standardized set of variables to investigate how patients are managed in real life and assess outcomes of various management strategies. OBJECTIVE: Gaining expert consensus on a standardized list of variables to capture in the APEX COPD registry. METHODS: A modified, Delphi process was used to reach consensus on which data to collect in the registry from electronic health records (EHRs), patient-reported information (PRI) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO), and by physicians during subsequent office visits. The Delphi panel comprised 14 primary care and specialty COPD experts from the United States and internationally. The process consisted of 3 iterative rounds. Responses were collected electronically. RESULTS: Of the initial 195 variables considered, consensus was reached to include up to 115 EHR variables, 34 PRI/PRO variables and 5 office-visit variables in the APEX COPD registry. These should include information on symptom burden, diagnosis, COPD exacerbations, lung function, quality of life, comorbidities, smoking status/history, treatment specifics (including side effects), inhaler management, and patient education/self-management. CONCLUSION: COPD experts agreed upon the core variables to collect from EHR data and from patients to populate the APEX COPD registry. Data will eventually be integrated, standardized and stored in the APEX COPD database and used for approved COPD-related research.

Evaluating the real-life effect of MP-AzeFlu on asthma outcomes in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®; spray of azelastine/fluticasone propionate) is the most effective allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment available. Its effect on asthma outcomes in patients with AR and asthma is unknown. METHODS: This pre-post historical cohort study, using the Optimum Patient Care Research Database, included patients aged ≥12 years, from UK general practice with active asthma (defined as a recorded diagnosis, with ≥1 prescription for reliever or controller inhaler) in the year before or at the initiation date. The primary study outcome was change in number of acute respiratory events (i.e. exacerbation or antibiotic course for a respiratory event) between baseline and outcome years. The effect size of MP-AzeFlu was quantified as the difference in % of patients that improved and worsened. RESULTS: Of the 1,188 patients with AR and asthma included, many had a record of irreversible obstruction (67%), and uncontrolled asthma (70.4%), despite high mean daily doses of reliever/controller therapy and acute oral corticosteroid use, in the year pre-MP-AzeFlu initiation. MP-AzeFlu initiation was associated with fewer acute respiratory events (effect size (e) = 5.8%, p = 0.0129) and a reduction in daily use of short-acting ß2-agonists, with fewer patients requiring >2 SABA puffs/week (e = 7.7% p < 0.0001). More patients had well-controlled asthma 1-year post-MP-AzeFlu initiation (e = 4.1%; p = 0.0037), despite a reduction in inhaled corticosteroids (e = 4.8%; p = 0.0078). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first direct evidence of the beneficial effect of MP-AzeFlu on asthma outcomes in co-morbid patients in primary care in the United Kingdom. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUPAS30940. Registered August 13, 2019.

Characterization of Severe Asthma Worldwide: Data From the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Clinical characteristics of the international population with severe asthma are unknown. Intercountry comparisons are hindered by variable data collection within regional and national severe asthma registries. We aimed to describe demographic and clinical characteristics of patients treated in severe asthma services in the United States, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: The International Severe Asthma Registry retrospectively and prospectively collected data in patients with severe asthma (≥ 18 years old), receiving Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 5 treatment or with severe asthma remaining uncontrolled at GINA Step 4. Baseline demographic and clinical data were collected from the United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Italy, and the Severe Asthma Web-based Database registry (including Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand) from December 2014 to December 2017. RESULTS: We included 4,990 patients. Mean (SD) age was 55.0 (15.9) years, and mean (SD) age at asthma onset was 30.7 (17.7) years. Patients were predominantly female (59.3%) and white (72.6%), had never smoked (60.5%), and were overweight or obese (70.4%); 34.9% were at GINA Step 5; and 57.2% had poorly controlled disease. A total of 51.1% of patients were receiving regular intermittent oral corticosteroids, and 25.4% were receiving biologics (72.6% for those at GINA Step 5). Mean (SD) exacerbation rate was 1.7 (2.7) per year. Intercountry variation was observed in clinical characteristics, prescribed treatments, and biomarker profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Using a common data set and definitions, this study describes severe asthma characteristics of a large patient cohort included in multiple severe asthma registries and identifies country differences. Whether these are related to underlying epidemiological factors, environmental factors, phenotypes, asthma management systems, treatment access, and/or cultural factors requires further study.