COVID-19 vaccination acceptance, safety and side-effects in European patients with severe asthma.

Background: Vaccination is vital for achieving population immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but vaccination hesitancy presents a threat to achieving widespread immunity. Vaccine acceptance in chronic potentially immunosuppressed patients is largely unclear, especially in patients with asthma. The aim of this study was to investigate the vaccination experience in people with severe asthma. Methods: Questionnaires about vaccination beliefs (including the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale, a measure of vaccination hesitancy-related beliefs), vaccination side-effects, asthma control and overall safety perceptions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination were sent to patients with severe asthma in 12 European countries between May and June 2021. Results: 660 participants returned completed questionnaires (87.4% response rate). Of these, 88% stated that they had been, or intended to be, vaccinated, 9.5% were undecided/hesitant and 3% had refused vaccination. Patients who hesitated or refused vaccination had more negative beliefs towards vaccination. Most patients reported mild (48.2%) or no side-effects (43.8%). Patients reporting severe side-effects (5.7%) had more negative beliefs. Most patients (88.8%) reported no change in asthma symptoms after vaccination, while 2.4% reported an improvement, 5.3% a slight deterioration and 1.2% a considerable deterioration. Almost all vaccinated (98%) patients would recommend vaccination to other severe asthma patients. Conclusions: Uptake of vaccination in patients with severe asthma in Europe was high, with a small minority refusing vaccination. Beliefs predicted vaccination behaviour and side-effects. Vaccination had little impact on asthma control. Our findings in people with severe asthma support the broad message that COVID-19 vaccination is safe and well tolerated.

What bothers severe asthma patients most? A paired patient-clinician study across seven European countries.

Introduction: Severe asthma is a complex, multidimensional disease. Optimal treatment, adherence and outcomes require shared decision-making, rooted in mutual understanding between patient and clinician. This study used a novel, patient-centred approach to examine the most bothersome aspects of severe asthma to patients, as seen from both perspectives in asthma registries. Methods: Across seven countries, 126 patients with severe asthma completed an open-ended survey regarding most the bothersome aspect(s) of their asthma. Patients' responses were linked with their treating clinician who also completed a free-text survey about each patient's most bothersome aspect(s). Responses were coded using content analysis, and patient and clinician responses were compared. Finally, asthma registries that are part of the SHARP (Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred) Clinical Research Collaboration were examined to see the extent to which they reflected the most bothersome aspects reported by patients. Results: 88 codes and 10 themes were identified. Clinicians were more focused on direct physical symptoms and were less focused on "holistic" aspects such as the effort required to self-manage the disease. Clinicians accurately identified a most bothersome symptom for 29% of patients. Agreement was particularly low with younger patients and those using oral corticosteroids infrequently. In asthma registries, patient aspects were predominantly represented in questionnaires. Conclusions: Results demonstrated different perspectives and priorities between patients and clinicians, with clinicians more focused on physical aspects. These differences must be considered when treating individual patients, and within multidisciplinary treatment teams. The use of questionnaires that include multifaceted aspects of disease may result in improved asthma research.

Evaluation of real-world mepolizumab use in severe asthma across Europe: the SHARP experience with privacy-preserving federated analysis.

Background: An objective of the Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Registry, Patient-centered (SHARP) is to produce real-world evidence on a pan-European scale by linking nonstandardised, patient-level registry data. Mepolizumab has shown clinical efficacy in randomised controlled trials and prospective real-world studies and could therefore serve as a proof of principle for this novel approach. The aim of the present study was to harmonise data from 10 national severe asthma registries and characterise patients receiving mepolizumab, assess its effectiveness on annual exacerbations and maintenance oral glucocorticoid (OCS) use, and evaluate treatment patterns. Methods: In this observational cohort study, registry data (5871 patients) were extracted for harmonisation. Where harmonisation was possible, patients who initiated mepolizumab between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2021 were examined. Changes of a 12-month (range 11-18 months) period in frequent (two or more) exacerbations, maintenance OCS use and dose were analysed in a privacy-preserving manner using meta-analysis of generalised estimating equation parameters. Periods before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were analysed separately. Results: In 912 patients who fulfilled selection criteria, mepolizumab significantly reduced frequent exacerbations (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.13-0.25), maintenance OCS use (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.92) and dose (mean -3.93 mg·day-1, 95% CI -5.24-2.62 mg·day-1) in the pre-pandemic group, with similar trends in the pandemic group. Marked heterogeneity was observed between registries in patient characteristics and mepolizumab treatment patterns. Conclusions: By harmonising patient-level registry data and applying federated analysis, SHARP demonstrated the real-world effectiveness of mepolizumab on asthma exacerbations and maintenance OCS use in severe asthma patients across Europe, consistent with previous evidence. This paves the way for future pan-European real-world severe asthma studies using patient-level data in a privacy-proof manner.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on severe asthma care in Europe: will care change for good?

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put pressure on healthcare services, forcing the reorganisation of traditional care pathways. We investigated how physicians taking care of severe asthma patients in Europe reorganised care, and how these changes affected patient satisfaction, asthma control and future care. Methods: In this European-wide cross-sectional study, patient surveys were sent to patients with a physician-diagnosis of severe asthma, and physician surveys to severe asthma specialists between November 2020 and May 2021. Results: 1101 patients and 268 physicians from 16 European countries contributed to the study. Common physician-reported changes in severe asthma care included use of video/phone consultations (46%), reduced availability of physicians (43%) and change to home-administered biologics (38%). Change to phone/video consultations was reported in 45% of patients, of whom 79% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Of 709 patients on biologics, 24% experienced changes in biologic care, of whom 92% were changed to home-administered biologics and of these 62% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Only 2% reported worsening asthma symptoms associated with changes in biologic care. Many physicians expect continued implementation of video/phone consultations (41%) and home administration of biologics (52%). Conclusions: Change to video/phone consultations and home administration of biologics was common in severe asthma care during the COVID-19 pandemic and was associated with high satisfaction levels in most but not all cases. Many physicians expect these changes to continue in future severe asthma care, though satisfaction levels may change after the pandemic.

Real-World Effectiveness of Reslizumab in Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma - First Initiators and Switchers.

BACKGROUND: Reslizumab, a biologic targeting IL-5, has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use in randomized controlled trials and pre-post studies in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, real-world effectiveness data of reslizumab are scarce, and it is unknown whether reslizumab has added value after switching from another type 2 biologic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate (1) the real-world effectiveness of reslizumab on severe asthma exacerbations, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, and overall treatment response, both in biologic-naive patients who initiated reslizumab and in those who switched from another type 2 biologic; and (2) physicians' experience with reslizumab treatment. METHODS: This observational real-world study evaluated data from 134 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma included in the Dutch severe asthma registry (RAPSODI), who initiated reslizumab treatment (4-weekly infusions, 0.3 mg/kg) before April 2020 and had follow-up data for 6 months and greater. Clinical asthma experts completed surveys on their experience with reslizumab treatment. RESULTS: Overall, reslizumab reduced the exacerbation rate (odds ratio [95% CI] = 0.10 [0.05-0.21]; P < .001), oral corticosteroid use (OR [95% CI], 0.2 [0.0-0.5]; P < .001), and maintenance dose (median [CI], 5.0 [0.0-10.0] to 0.0 [0.0-5.0]; P < .001), with comparable results in biologic-naive reslizumab initiators and switchers. The overall response to reslizumab was graded good or excellent in 59.2% of patients. The additive effectiveness of reslizumab after switching from another biologic was reflected in physicians' surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data show that reslizumab reduces severe asthma exacerbations and oral corticosteroid use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, both in biologic-naive reslizumab initiators and in those who switched from another type 2 biologic. This additional value of reslizumab was recognized by clinical asthma experts.

Overuse of Oral Corticosteroids, Underuse of Inhaled Corticosteroids, and Implications for Biologic Therapy in Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma patients using high cumulative doses of oral corticosteroids (OCSs) are at risk of serious adverse events and are increasingly being treated with steroid-sparing asthma biologics. However, it is unknown whether prescribing these expensive biologics is always justified. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) assess the prevalence of asthma patients using high cumulative doses of OCSs, (2) explore the role of suboptimal inhaler therapy, and (3) estimate the proportion of patients to whom asthma biologics might be prescribed unnecessarily. METHODS: All adults (n = 5,002) with at least 1 prescription of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (≥500-1,000 mcg/day fluticasone-equivalent) and/or OCSs (GINA step 4-5) in 2010 were selected from a pharmacy database including 500,500 Dutch inhabitants, and sent questionnaires. Of 2,312 patients who returned questionnaires, 929 had asthma. We calculated the annual cumulative OCS dose and prescription fillings and checked inhaler technique in a sample of 60 patients. Patients estimated to have good adherence and inhaler proficiency who still required high doses of OCSs (≥420 mg/year) were considered candidates for initiating biologic treatment. RESULTS: 29.5% of asthma patients on GINA 4-5 therapy used high doses of OCSs, of which 78.1% were likely to have poor therapy adherence or inadequate inhaler technique. Only 21.9% were considered definitive candidates for biologic therapy. CONCLUSION: High OCS use in Dutch GINA 4-5 asthma patients was common. However, in 4 out of 5 patients adherence to inhaled corticosteroid therapy and/or inhalation technique was considered suboptimal. Since optimizing inhaler therapy may reduce the need for OCSs, this should be mandatory before prescribing expensive steroid-sparing drugs.

Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·76-1·20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0·51 [0·27-0·95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0·52 (95% CI 0·26-1·05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1·07 (0·63-1·80; p=0·81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0·0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. FUNDING: Amsterdam Medical Center Foundation, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek/ZonMW, and the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative 2.

Poor outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with severe asthma on biologic therapy.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether asthma and asthma medications increase or decrease the risk of severe COVID-19, and this is particularly true for patients with severe asthma receiving biologics. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess incidence and disease course of COVID-19 in patients with severe asthma on biologic therapy (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab), as compared with COVID-19 data from the general Dutch population. METHODS: COVID-19 cases were identified through a prospective ongoing survey between March 17 and April 30, 2020 among all severe asthma specialists from 15 hospitals of the Dutch Severe Asthma Registry RAPSODI. From these cases, data was collected on patient characteristics, including co-morbidities, COVID-19 disease progression and asthma exacerbations. Findings were then compared with COVID-19 data from the general Dutch population. RESULTS: Of 634 severe asthma patients who received biologic therapy in RAPSODI, 9 (1.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Seven patients (1.1%) required hospitalization for oxygen therapy, of which 5 were admitted to the intensive care for intubation and mechanical ventilation. One patient died (0.16%). All intubated patients had ≥1 co-morbidities. Odds (95%CI) for COVID-19 related hospitalization and intubations were 14 (6.6-29.5) and 41 (16.9-98.5) times higher, respectively, compared to the Dutch population. One patient presented with an asthma exacerbation. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe asthma using biologic therapy showed to have a more severe course of COVID-19 compared to the general population. This may be due to co-morbidities, the severity of asthmatic airway inflammation, the use of biologics, or a combination of these.

Long-Term Therapy Response to Anti-IL-5 Biologics in Severe Asthma-A Real-Life Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma show different responses to various anti-IL-5 biologics, ranging from super response to nonresponse. Residual disease manifestations observed in partial responders may prompt physicians to switch between biologics. More data on response, switches, and residual disease manifestations are needed to improve personalized treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess (1) prevalences and predictors of super, partial, and nonresponders to long-term anti-IL-5 treatment, (2) frequency and reasons for switches between anti-IL-5 biologics, and (3) nature of residual disease manifestations. METHODS: In this 2-year follow-up study, patients with severe asthma were included who initiated an anti-IL-5 biologic (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab) (n = 114). Patient characteristics (clinical, functional, inflammatory) and comorbidities were collected at baseline and 2-year follow-up. "Super responders" showed no residual disease manifestations at 2-year follow-up, "partial responders" experienced residual disease manifestations, and "nonresponders" discontinued anti-IL-5 treatment after less than 2 years because of clinical worsening. RESULTS: After 2-year anti-IL-5 treatment, 14% of patients were super responders, 69% partial responders, and 11% nonresponders. Super response was predicted by shorter asthma duration and higher FEV1, and tended to be associated with adult-onset asthma, absence of nasal polyps, and lower body mass index. Switches between anti-IL-5 biologics occurred frequently (41%). After 2-year treatment, most common residual disease manifestations included impaired lung function (59%), uncontrolled sinonasal disease (58%), and uncontrolled asthma symptoms (48%). CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years of anti-IL-5 treatment, a favorable response was found in 83% of patients with severe asthma, including a super response in 14%. Most partial responders show impaired lung function or uncontrolled sinonasal disease, causing physicians to switch between biologics.

The emergence of new biologics for severe asthma.

Patients with severe asthma experience severe symptoms and frequent exacerbations despite intensive treatment with inhaled and oral glucocorticoids. Biologics for severe asthma aim to reduce asthma-related and glucocorticoid-induced morbidity. Recently, new biologics targeting interleukin (IL)-5, IL-5 receptor and IL-4/IL-13, which are all cytokines involved in so-called type 2 airway inflammation, were approved for severe asthma. They show a reduction in exacerbation rate and an oral glucocorticoid-sparing effect. Studies with upstream biologics targeting alarmin cytokines such as thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and IL-33 are underway, and newly designed bispecific antibodies targeting more than one pathway are in early phases of development. Such pathway-targeted add-on treatments will soon become standard of care for all patients with severe asthma.