Management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Spain: learnings from a nationwide survey of otorhinolaryngologists.

PURPOSE: To describe the self-reported practices on the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) by ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialists in Spain to identify potential areas for management optimization. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey with 16 questions was carried out. Recruitment was performed by emailing registered ENT specialists in the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC). RESULTS: In total, 127 ENT specialists completed the survey. Fifty-one percent of respondents combined clinical criteria and objective evidence of mucosal inflammation to diagnose CRSwNP. Patient interview and, to a lower degree, a visual analogue scale were the most employed diagnostic tools to quantify symptom severity. Less than half (45%) routinely used the 22-item sino-nasal outcomes test (SNOT-22) to assess the impact of CRSwNP disease in quality of life. The use of patient-reported outcomes and other clinical evaluation tools showed a larger uptake among ENT specialists that worked at an ENT department with an available rhinology unit. Almost all the specialists surveyed (95%) recommended biological treatment, particularly in patients with uncontrolled CRSwNP with respiratory comorbidities (76%), as well as in candidates for revision surgery (66%). CONCLUSION: Spanish otorhinolaryngologists showed a trend toward incorporating CRSwNP guideline recommendations in their clinical practice. The observed low uptake of patient-reported outcomes and objective clinical evaluation tools in routine clinical practise have been identified as areas for optimizing the management of patients with CRSwNP.

Determinants of blood eosinophil levels in the general population and patients with COPD: a population-based, epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Blood eosinophils are considered a biomarker for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Population-based studies are needed to better understand the determinants of the blood eosinophil count (BEC) in individuals with and without COPD. METHODS: EPISCAN II is a multicentre, cross-sectional, population-based epidemiological study aimed at investigating the prevalence and determinants of COPD in Spain. Study subjects were randomly selected from the general population, and COPD was defined by a post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 0.7. For the pre-specified outcomes related to BEC, the first 35 COPD and 35 non-COPD subjects were consecutively recruited in 12 of the participating centres with the objective of analysing 400 individuals in each group. Baseline BEC and its association with demographic, clinical and functional variables were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 326 COPD and 399 non-COPD subjects were included in the analysis. The mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 63.2 years (11.0), 46.3% were male, and 27.6% were active smokers. BEC was significantly higher in individuals with COPD [192 cells/µL (SD: 125) vs. 160 cells/µL (SD: 114); p = 0.0003]. In a stepwise multivariate model, being male, active smoker and having a previous diagnosis of asthma were independently associated with having a higher BEC. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study estimated the distribution of eosinophils in the healthy adult population and concluded that COPD patients have a significantly higher BEC. Male sex, active smoking and concomitant asthma were significantly associated with a higher BEC.

REal worlD Effectiveness and Safety of Mepolizumab in a Multicentric Spanish Cohort of Asthma Patients Stratified by Eosinophils: The REDES Study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of mepolizumab is well documented in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), although the stringent selection criteria adopted by SEA clinical trials limits the generalizability of results. OBJECTIVE: Our study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in patients with SEA in Spain. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations 12 months after starting mepolizumab compared to the baseline rate in the 12 months prior to treatment. Patients were stratified by baseline blood eosinophil counts. METHODS: We conducted a multicentric observational cohort study of SEA patients treated with mepolizumab across 24 specialized hospital asthma units in Spain. Severe exacerbation rate, lung function, oral corticosteroid use (OCS) and asthma control test (ACT) were retrospectively collected and compared during the 12-month pre- and post-mepolizumab treatment. Adverse events were also investigated. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients with SEA were included (mean age: 56.6 years, 69.2% female). Exacerbation rates decreased by 77.5%, and 50.6% of patients did not suffer any exacerbations during the 12 months of treatment. The difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) pre- and post-bronchodilator after starting mepolizumab was 0.21 (0.46) L (95% CI 0.14-0.27) (p < 0.001). Exacerbations and lung function significantly improved across all eosinophil subgroups. Among the 98 patients on OCS, 47.8% were able to discontinue this treatment and the mean daily dose was decreased by 59.9%. The baseline ACT score was 14.1, increasing by a mean (SD) of 6.7 points (1.9) at 12 months. Adverse events related to mepolizumab were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study of SEA patients confirms that mepolizumab is effective in reducing clinically meaningful exacerbations, improving lung function, and decreasing OCS dependence and mean OCS dose at 12 months, irrespective of baseline eosinophil counts.

Asthma control in primary care: the results of an observational cross-sectional study in Italy and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Poor asthma control observed in several surveys may be related to a lack of systematic assessment by physicians and/or to patient underestimation of symptoms. Along this line, the purpose of this study was to investigate the level of asthma control in patients attending the GP office for different reasons, either for renewal of drug prescription or for worsening of asthma symptoms. METHODS: Each of the 145 General Practitioners (GP) in Italy and Spain selected at least eight asthmatic patients attending their office for a renewal of drug prescription (Group A) or for worsening of asthma symptoms (Group B), between May and December 2009. Asthma Control Test (ACT) and other clinical information (including SF-12 questionnaire) were collected. RESULTS: Data from 1375 patients with moderate-severe asthma were analysed (mean age: 47.2 years; female: 59%; smokers or ex-smokers: 35.4%); 57% were on treatment with ICS-LABA combination. ACT score < 20 (uncontrolled asthma) was observed in 77.8% Group B patients, as expected, but also in 28.6% Group A patients. Uncontrolled patients reported their asthma being well or fairly well controlled in 68.4% of cases. Risk factors for uncontrolled asthma were older age, asthma severity, and smoking habit. In uncontrolled patients, GPs changed or increased the level of therapy in 75.8% and initiated asthma treatment in 61.3% of cases, in association with educational intervention, closer monitoring or pulmonologist consultations. DISCUSSION: The systematic use of ACT in asthmatics attending GP's clinic may detect high rates of uncontrolled patients who underestimate their clinical conditions, particularly those asking solely for asthma medication renewal. Poor adherence to daily drug therapy was reported in more than 40% of patients and could be an important contributor of uncontrolled asthma. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the importance of routine longitudinal assessment of asthma patients in primary care and point to the need for an increased attention to asthma management by GPs.