Real-World Characteristics of Patients with Severe Asthma prior to Starting Dupilumab: The ProVENT Study.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab is approved for the treatment of severe type 2 (T2) asthma; however, the characteristics of patients receiving dupilumab in routine clinical practice are incompletely understood. This study describes the characteristics of patients with severe asthma before dupilumab treatment in a real-world setting. METHODS: This interim analysis of an ongoing real-life study of dupilumab assessed baseline characteristics of the first patient cohort enrolled in the ProVENT study. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients (59% females) were analyzed (17% received another biologic before dupilumab treatment and 15% were on maintenance oral corticosteroid treatment). Adult-onset asthma (>18 years) and an allergic phenotype were documented in 58% and 48% of patients, respectively. Median (interquartile range) age was 54 (40-61) years; the median number of exacerbations in the last 24 months was 1 (0-3); median fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) value was 38 (23-64) ppb; and median blood eosinophils (bEOS) count was 184 (8-505) cells/µL. According to the United Kingdom Severe Asthma Registry classification, 53% of patients had T2 intermediate asthma (bEOS ≥150 cells/µL or FeNO ≥25 ppb), 17% had T2 high asthma (bEOS ≥150 cells/µL and FeNO ≥25 ppb), and 4% had T2 low asthma (bEOS <150 cells/µL and FeNO <25 ppb). At least one GINA criterion for T2 airway inflammation was documented in 70% of patients. T2 comorbidities were observed in 64% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that patients eligible for dupilumab treatment display various clinical and biochemical characteristics rather than one clear-cut phenotype.

Health Care Situation in the Treatment of Uncontrolled GINA Step 4/5 Patients in Germany.

Purpose: It has been estimated that, in 2019, 54,000 patients in Germany had uncontrolled GINA step 4/5 asthma. In the current study we analyzed which health care providers were involved in the management of these patients and their role in disease phenotyping. Patients and Methods: The year 2019 was retrospectively analyzed using the IQVIATM LRx, a longitudinal anonymized prescription database, and the electronic, anonymized medical records database, the IQVIA Disease Analyzer. Results: Of 54,000 uncontrolled GINA step 4/5 asthma patients in Germany, 52% had consulted both general practitioners (GPs) and pulmonologists, and 48% were seen exclusively by a GP. Of these 54,000 patients, 45% were being prescribed and were thus overusing short-acting ß2-agonists (SABAs) and oral corticosteroids (OCS) for ≥2 years, 26% for ≥3 years, and 16% for ≥4 years. In most regions, pulmonologists saw one of their uncontrolled GINA step 4/5 asthma patients per week. Laboratory tests from consultations with a GP were available for only 10% of patients referred to a pulmonologist. In 50% of uncontrolled asthma patients treated according to GINA step 4/5, these were initiated by the pulmonologist, and 34% received laboratory testing within the first year (in GINA step 4/5 asthma, the numbers are 20% and 18%, respectively). Conclusion: Fifty percent of uncontrolled asthma patients treated according to GINA step 4/5 were regularly seen by pulmonologists, who performed most of the phenotyping confirming their importance in the management of severe, uncontrolled asthma in Germany. To understand treatment pathways for these patients, further studies are needed.

Criteria for evaluation of response to biologics in severe asthma - the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS).

BACKGROUND: The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (biologics) has revolutionized the therapy of severe asthma. Even though there is a response in the majority of patients, the degree of response varies. To date criteria for assessment of response to biologics are not consistently defined. AIM: To define criteria for evaluation of response to biologics that are precise, simple and suitable for daily use in order to guide decision-making regarding continuation, switching or stopping of biological therapy. METHODS: 8 physicians with large experience in this indication, supported by a data-scientist, developed a consensus on criteria to evaluate response to biologics in patients with severe asthma. RESULT: We developed a combined score based on current literature, own experience and practicability. It uses the main criteria exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy and asthma control (asthma control test, ACT). We defined thresholds for "good response", "response" and "insufficient response" rated with a score of "2", "1" and "0" respectively: annual exacerbations ("0 or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reductio < 50 %"), daily OCS dose ("stopping or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reduction < 50 %"), asthma control ("ACT increase ≥ 6 or ≥ 3 with result ≥ 20", "ACT increase 3-5 with result < 20", "ACT increase < 3"). Additional individual criteria like lung function and comorbidities may be important for evaluation of response. We propose 3, 6 and 12 months timepoint for assessment of tolerability and response. Using the combined score, we developed a scheme to guide the decision whether switching the biologic should be considered. CONCLUSION: The Biologic Asthma Response Score (BARS) serves as objective and simple tool to evaluate response to biologic therapy using the three main criteria exacerbations, OCS use and asthma control. A validation of the score was initiated.

Response to Biologics and Clinical Remission in the Adult German Asthma Net Severe Asthma Registry Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Recently, criteria for evaluation of response to biologics have been proposed and the concept of clinical remission has gained attention as a possible goal even in severe asthma. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the response and remission in the German Asthma Net severe asthma registry cohort. METHODS: We included adults not using a biologic at baseline (V0) and compared patients treated between V0 and 1-year visit (V1) without using a biologic (group A) to patients starting with a biologic after V0 and continuing it up to V1 (group B). We applied the Biologics Asthma Response Score to quantify composite response in good, intermediate, or insufficient. We defined clinical remission (R) as absence of significant symptoms (Asthma Control Test score ≥ 20 at V1) in the absence of exacerbations and oral corticosteroid therapy. RESULTS: Group A included 233 and group B 210 patients, the latter receiving omalizumab (n = 33), mepolizumab (n = 40), benralizumab (n = 81), reslizumab (n = 1), or dupilumab (n = 56). At baseline, group B had less often an allergic phenotype (35.2% vs 41.6%), lower Asthma Control Test score (median, 12 vs 14), more exacerbations in the past year (median, 3 vs 2), and more often high-dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment (71.4% vs 51.5%) than group A. After 1 year of treatment, rates of response (good: 61.4% vs 34.8%; intermediate: 26.7% vs 42.9%; insufficient: 11.9% vs. 22.3%) and/or clinical remission (37.6% vs 17.2%) were higher in group B than in group A. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more severe asthma at baseline, patients treated with biologics had a markedly higher probability of achieving good clinical response and/or remission than patients treated without biologics.

[Criteria for evaluation of response to biologics in severe asthma - the Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS)]. / Kriterien zur Evaluation des Ansprechens auf Biologika bei schwerem Asthma ­ der Biologics Asthma Response Score (BARS).

BACKGROUND: The introduction of monoclonal antibodies (biologics) has revolutionized the therapy of severe asthma. Even though there is a response in the majority of patients, the degree of response varies. To date criteria for assessment of response to biologics are not consistently defined. AIM: To define criteria for evaluation of response to biologics that are precise, simple and suitable for daily use in order to guide decision-making regarding continuation, switching or stopping of biological therapy. METHODS: 8 physicians with large experience in this indication, supported by a data-scientist, developed a consensus on criteria to evaluate response to biologics in patients with severe asthma. RESULT: We developed a combined score based on current literature, own experience and practicability. It uses the main criteria exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) therapy and asthma control (asthma control test, ACT). We defined thresholds for "good response", "response" and "insufficient response" rated with a score of "2", "1" and "0" respectively: annual exacerbations ("0 or reduction ≥ 75 %", reduction 50-74 %", "reductio  < 50 %"), daily OCS dose ("stopping or reduction ≥ 75 %", "reduction 50-74 %", "reduction < 50 %"), asthma control (ACT increase ≥ 6 or ≥ 3 with result ≥ 20", "ACT increase 3-5 with result < 20", "ACT increase < 3"). Additional individual criteria like lung function and comorbidities may be important for evaluation of response. We propose 3, 6 and 12 months timepoint for assessment of tolerability and response. Using the combined score, we developed a scheme to guide the decision whether switching the biologic should be considered. CONCLUSION: The Biologic Asthma Response Score (BARS) serves as objective and simple tool to evaluate response to biologic therapy using the three main criteria exacerbations, OCS use and asthma control. A validation of the score was initiated.

Epidemiology, treatment and health care resource use of patients with severe asthma in Germany - a retrospective claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asthma causes various clinical symptoms, including unpredictable severe exacerbations, and even though most patients can achieve a reasonable disease control due to adequate treatment, some patients do not. This study seeks to describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and treatment of asthma and severe asthma patients in Germany. METHOD: A retrospective claims data analysis has been conducted on adult asthma patients and a subset of patients with severe asthma, identified during July 2017 - June 2018. A proxy was used to identify severe asthma patients based on therapy options recommended within the German treatment guideline for treating these patients. These include (i) biologics, (ii) medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in conjunction with LABA/montelukast and antibiotics/oral corticosteroids (OCS), and (iii) long-term OCS therapy. HCRU and treatment of patients were observed during a 1-year follow-up period (July 2018 - June 2019). RESULTS: The study included 388 932 adult asthma patients (prevalence: 7.90%), with 2.51%-12.88% affected by severe asthma (depending on the definition). 22.60% of all asthma patients experienced hospitalizations (severe asthma: 36.11%). Furthermore, 13.59% received OCS (severe asthma: 39.91%), but only 0.18% (severe asthma: 1.25%) received biologics. Only 23.95% (severe asthma: 41.17%) visited a pulmonologist. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of severe asthma patients receive long-term OCS therapy. However, less than 50% have seen a pulmonologist who would typically seek a change in treatment to avoid the long-term consequences of OCS. To optimize the treatment of severe asthma in Germany, better referral of these patients to specialists is needed and considering potential treatment alternatives.

Association between asthma control and healthcare costs: Results from a German linked data study.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate differences in healthcare resource utilization and cost among patients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma.Methods: Claims data from a German sickness fund was linked to patient survey data. Outpatient physicians enrolled patients and assessed asthma control using the ACTTM questionnaire. All-cause and asthma-specific healthcare resource use (HCRU)/costs were compared descriptively and based on multivariable models using a continuous ACTTM score.Results: Overall, 492 asthma patients were included (mean age: 53.8, 73.8% female). The mean/median ACTTM score was 19.9/20.7, with 183 patients (37.2%) classified as having uncontrolled asthma (mean ACTTM score<20) Patients with uncontrolled asthma had significantly more hospitalizations (p = .035) and medication prescriptions (p < .001), which resulted in higher total healthcare costs for asthma-related (€1785 vs. €1615; p = .004) and all-cause care (€4695 vs. €4117; p = .009). While controlling for baseline characteristics, multivariable models confirmed a negative association between asthma control and total all-cause healthcare costs (p = .008), total asthma-related costs (p = .008), and costs of medication prescriptions (p = .001). However, no significant association was found for all-cause (p = .062) and asthma-related hospitalization costs (p = .576).Conclusion: Considering continuous patient care, improving asthma control is not only desirable from a clinical perspective, but could also be an effective approach to reduce asthma-related HCRU and cost burden.

Prevalence of Patients with Uncontrolled Asthma Despite NVL/GINA Step 4/5 Treatment in Germany.

Purpose: Asthma is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in Germany affecting 4-5% of all adults and 10% of children. Despite the availability of biologicals in recent years, studies show patients with inadequately controlled severe asthma in real life. The aim of the current study was to characterize and estimate the number of patients with NVL/GINA level 4 or 5 asthma and signs of poor control in Germany. Patients and Methods: In 2021, we retrospectively analyzed data collected during 2019 using the IQVIA™ LRx and IQVIA™ Disease Analyzer databases which contain anonymized longitudinal data covering approximately 80% of statutory health insurance (GKV) prescriptions in Germany with most relevant information about prescriptions, basic patient demographics or location of the prescriber; the IQVIA™ Disease Analyzer anonymized electronic medical records from a representative sample of office-based GPs and specialists. An expert committee of pulmonologists from different hospitals and expert practices supported the study. Asthma patients treated according to NVL/GINA 4/5 who used SABAs frequently (≥3 on days with no ICS-containing prescriptions/year) and/or received prescriptions for oral corticosteroids (OCS) (score of ≥2/year, a pulmonologist prescription scored 1.0, GP 0.75) were classified as severe, uncontrolled asthma. Results: In 2019, 3.4 million patients received at least two prescriptions of respiratory medications and 2.4 million patients on maintenance respiratory treatment have asthma. A total of 625,000 asthma patients were treated according to NVL/GINA step 4 or 5. Among these, 54,000 were uncontrolled according to the pre-defined OCS and/or SABA use, which corresponds to approximately 15% of patients in certain regions. Conclusion: In 2019, approximately 54,000 patients in Germany treated according to NVL/GINA step 4/5 had evidence suggestive for poor asthma control, up to 15% of patients in certain regions. Yet, only 12,000 patients overall were being treated with biologicals suggesting a possible treatment gap that requires further investigation.

Management of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hypersensitivity. METHODS: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine-related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. RESULTS: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)-vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). CONCLUSION: Proven IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered.

Use of Biologic Therapies in the Treatment of Asthma - A Comparative Real World Data Analysis on Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs Before and After Therapy Initiation.

Background: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in Germany. While many patients achieve asthma control under standard therapies, some patients still experience exacerbations and persistent airway obstructions. Thus, further pharmacological treatment is needed, and biologics could fill this gap, as they have shown clinical benefit in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, this real-world study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs before and after biologic therapy initiation. Methods: A retrospective claims data analysis has been conducted on adult asthma patients who initiated a long-term biologic therapy between January 2015 and June 2018. Patients were therapy-naïve to biologics for at least 12 months. HCRU and cost incurred by patients during 12 months before and after therapy initiation were compared. Results: Overall, 571 asthma patients initiated a biologic therapy during the observational period (316 omalizumab, 232 mepolizumab, 16 benralizumab, and 7 reslizumab). Patients had a mean age of 54.86 (62.70% female), and the majority (93.70%) received at least one follow-up prescription of their index-biologic agent within one year. During baseline, patients received on average 2.75 OCS prescriptions compared to 2.17 during follow-up. Most patients received less or the same amount of OCS after therapy initiation. Moreover, hospitalizations and asthma-related sick leave days decreased significantly. The average total costs per patient were €6618.90 during baseline and €22,832.33 during follow-up. Biologics mainly drove the increase; however, hospitalization costs were reduced significantly (€2443.37 vs €1941.93; p<0.001). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates an improved asthma control due to the initiation of a biologic therapy in terms of decreased hospitalization frequency, OCS consumption, and sick leave days. However, biologics are associated with high costs for healthcare providers during the first year after initiation. Therefore, short- and long-term clinical benefits and financial burden must be considered in the overall context of healthcare.

The German severe asthma patient: Baseline characteristics of patients in the German Severe Asthma Registry, and relationship with exacerbations and control.

INTRODUCTION: The German Asthma Net Severe Asthma Registry is collecting long-term data from a large cohort of patients aged ≥6 years with severe asthma. This manuscript presents their baseline characteristics, and identifies relationships with exacerbations and/or poor asthma control. METHODS: The registry is collecting routine clinical parameters including: demographics and medical history; disease characteristics (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-5, forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]); exacerbations; and biomarkers (eosinophils, immunoglobulin E [IgE], fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]). RESULTS: These analyses include data from 2011 patients at 72 sites (91.9% adult). Children (6-17 years) were more likely to be male, whereas more adults were female (males: children/adults 62%/41%). Most were receiving inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations (78%/81%); 38.0% of adults were receiving systemic steroids. Asthma control was suboptimal in both groups: 21.5%/13.3% were controlled; 10.4%/49.1% were symptomatic; 33.1%/37.2% received emergency asthma treatment in the previous year. Median blood eosinophil (400/238 cells/µL) and IgE levels (494/186 IU/mL) were higher in children; FeNO was lower (19/35 ppb). Patients with ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year had lower FEV1 (absolute and % predicted) and IgE, and higher ACQ-5, FeNO and blood eosinophil levels (all p < 0.05). There was a weak, negative correlation between ACQ-5 and FEV1% predicted in adults (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses characterise the typical German patient with severe asthma, and provide information on their overall care. Their planned long-term follow-up will assess whether asthma control can be optimised, how best to do so, and most importantly how such optimisation can benefit patients.

Extent of non-adherence and non-persistence in asthma patients: analysis of a large claims data set.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess non-adherence (NA) and non-persistence (NP) to long-acting asthma medications in Germany by differentiating between measurement of NA in periods of therapy continuation and measurement of NP in therapy-naïve patients. METHODS: We analyzed treatment adherence to long-acting asthma medication using German claims data for periods of treatment continuation based on the medication possession ratio (MPR) and the proportion of days covered. Persistence was assessed in treatment-naïve patients. Outcomes were observed from the date of the first to the last prescription within a 12-month period. Both NA and NP analyses considered prescription supply, using either defined daily dosages, or prescribed daily dosages derived from a medical chart review. RESULTS: We identified 52,508 asthma patients (mean age: 40.1, 58.4% female) who received at least two long-acting asthma prescriptions within 12 months; 50,660 treatment-naïve patients were included in the NP analysis (mean age: 39.7, 58.8% female). The mean 12-month MPR was 38.5% (89.4% NA according to MPR ≤ 80%) and the average proportion of days covered was 40.4% (85.9% NA). Agent-specific MPR and NA rates varied between 31.8% (91.8% NA) and 56.2% (71.6% NA). The average weighted-MPR increased to 53.1% when using the prescribed daily dosage. Based on a > 90-day gap definition, 86.7% of patients were considered non-persistent after 12 months (>180: 72.3%). When using prescribed daily dosages, NP rates ranged from 66.7 to 78.5%. CONCLUSION: High levels of treatment NA and NP indicate a substantial need to improve adherence and persistence to long-acting asthma medication in Germany.

Identifying the Causes Increasing the Risk of Non-Adherence in Adult Patients with Asthma: An Analysis Combining Patient Survey Data with German Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: There exists a range of treatments in the management of asthma. Non-adherence to these medications has been identified as a factor negatively impacting the effects of treatment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the potential barriers to medication adherence among adult patients with asthma in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multi-center observational study was conducted addressing adult patients with asthma who were prescribed regular maintenance medication between 2014 and 2016. Data were derived from physicians' documentation as well as claims data, which were linked to the above primary observational data, and patient survey data. Adherence barriers were assessed by the validated Adherence Barriers Questionnaire, both descriptively and in a logistic regression framework. Cluster analysis identified distinct patient groups with respect to the relevance of specific adherence barriers. RESULTS: We included 524 patients with asthma (mean age 53.1 years, 74.6% female, 43.1% allergic asthma, 37.6% nonallergic, 19.3% mixed). Most of the participants reported to face at least three barriers (61.1%). Frequently reported barriers were the perception that medications are all harmful (53.6% of the participants), the burden of medication co-payment (44.1%), positive perception about current health status (39.9%), feeling of depression (30.9%), and the fear of side effects (27.5%). Four distinct patient clusters could be identified: cluster 1 with a low number of barriers (28.6% of participants), cluster 2 (11.6%) with a comparably high number of existing barriers, cluster 3 with high importance of depression as a barrier (27.3% of participants), and cluster 4 that was dominated by the perception that medications are all harmful (32.5% of participants). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study provide important insights for further development of adherence programs, which should focus on distinct patients' clusters that differ substantially in the relevance of specific adherence barriers.