Improvement in Olfaction in Patients With CRSwNP and Severe Asthma Taking Anti-IgE and Anti-IL-5 Biologics: A Real-Life Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), which is characterized by partial loss of smell (hyposmia) or total loss of smell (anosmia), is commonly associated with asthma and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD). CRSwNP worsens disease severity and quality of life. The objective of this real-world study was to determine whether biological treatments prescribed for severe asthma can improve olfaction in patients with CRSwNP. A further objective was to compare the improvement in in olfaction in N-ERD and non-N-ERD subgroups. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective, observational study of 206 patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP undergoing biological treatment (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab). RESULTS: Olfaction improved after treatment with all 4 monoclonal antibodies (omalizumab [35.8%], mepolizumab [35.4%], reslizumab [35.7%], and benralizumab [39.1%]), with no differences between the groups. Olfaction was more likely to improve in patients with atopy, more frequent use of short-course systemic corticosteroids, and larger polyp size. The proportion of patients whose olfaction improved was similar between the N-ERD (37%) and non-N-ERD (35.7%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first real-world study to compare improvement in olfaction among patients undergoing long-term treatment with omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, or benralizumab for severe asthma and associated CRSwNP. Approximately 4 out of 10 patients reported a subjective improvement in olfaction (with nonsignificant differences between biologic drugs). No differences were found for improved olfaction between the N-ERD and non-N-ERD groups.

Economic Consequences of the Overuse of Short-Acting ß-Adrenergic Agonists in the Treatment of Asthma in Spain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between short-acting ß-adrenergic agonist (SABA) overuse and health care resource use and costs in asthma patients in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A longitudinal retrospective study was conducted in Spanish primary and specialized care centers using the BIG-PAC medical records database. The study population comprised asthma patients ≥12 years of age who attended ≥2 consultations during 2017 and had 1-year follow-up data available. The main outcomes were demographics, comorbidities, medication, and clinical and health care resource use and costs. The relationship between SABA overuse and health care costs and between asthma severity and health care costs was determined. RESULTS: The SABA use IN Asthma (SABINA) study included 39 555 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 49.8 (20.7) years (64.2% female). The Charlson comorbidity index was 0.7 (1.0). SABA overuse (≥3 canisters/y) was 28.7% (95%CI, 27.7-29.7), with a mean of 3.3 (3.6) canisters/y. Overall, 5.1% of patients were prescribed ≥12 canisters/y. SABA overuse was correlated with health care costs (ρ=0.621; P<.001). The adjusted mean annual cost/patient according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA 2019) classification of asthma severity was €2231, €2345, €2735, €3473, and €4243 for steps 1-5, respectively (P<.001). Regardless of asthma severity, SABA overuse yielded a significant increase in health care costs per patient and year (€5702 vs €1917, P<.001) compared with recommended use (<2 canisters/y). CONCLUSION: SABA overuse yields high costs for the Spanish National Health System. Costs increased with severity of asthma.

Exacerbations Among Patients With Asthma Are Largely Dependent on the Presence of Multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Comorbidities can influence asthma control and promote asthma exacerbations (AEs). However, the impact of multimorbidity in AEs, assessed based on long-term follow-up of patients with asthma of different degrees of severity, has received little attention in real-life conditions. To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics and predictors of AEs in patients who had presented at least 1 AE in the previous year in the MEchanism of Genesis and Evolution of Asthma (MEGA) cohort. METHODS: The work-up included a detailed clinical examination, pulmonary function testing, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), blood counts, induced sputum, skin prick-tests, asthma questionnaires, and assessment of multimorbidity. The number of moderate-severe AEs in the preceding year was registered for each patient. RESULTS: The study population comprised 486 patients with asthma (23.7% mild, 35% moderate, 41.3% severe). Disease remained uncontrolled in 41.9%, and 47.3% presented ≥1 moderate-severe AE, with a mean (SD) annual exacerbation rate of 0.47 (0.91) vs 2.11 (2.82) in mild and severe asthma, respectively. Comorbidity was detected in 56.4% (66.6% among those with severe asthma). Bronchiectasis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, atopy, psychiatric illnesses, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension were significantly associated with AEs. No associations were found for FeNO, blood eosinophils, or total serum IgE. Sputum eosinophilia and a high-T2 inflammatory pattern were significantly associated with AEs. Multivariable regression analysis showed a significant association with asthma severity, uncontrolled disease, and low prebronchodilator FEV1/FVC. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed a high frequency of AE in the MEGA cohort. This was strongly associated with multimorbidity, asthma severity, poor asthma control, airflow obstruction, higher sputum eosinophils, and a very high-T2 inflammatory pattern.

Response to Monoclonal Antibodies in Asthma: Definitions, Potential Reasons for Failure, and Therapeutic Options for Suboptimal Response.

Real-life data reveal that more than half of severe asthma patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) do not achieve a complete response. Response to mAbs must be assessed holistically, considering all the clinically meaningful therapeutic goals, not only reduction of exacerbations and oral corticosteroids. There are 2 different ways of measuring the response to mAbs. One, qualitative, classifies patients according to the degree of disease control they have achieved, without explaining how much a given patient improves relative to the baseline (pre-mAb) clinical situation; the other, quantitative, scores the changes occurring after treatment. Both methods are complementary and essential to making clinical decisions on whether to continue treatment. The various potential causes of suboptimal response to mAbs include incorrect identification of the specific T2 pathways, comorbidities that reduce the room for improvement, insufficient dose, autoimmune phenomena, infections, change in the initial inflammatory endotype, and adverse events. Once a suboptimal response has been confirmed, a well-structured and multifaceted assessment of the potential causes of failure should be performed, with emphasis on the resulting inflammatory process of the airway after mAb therapy and the presence of chronic or recurrent infection. This investigation should guide the decision on the best therapeutic approach. The present review aims to help clinicians gain insights into how to measure response to mAbs and proceed in cases of suboptimal response.

Response to Monoclonal Antibodies in Asthma: Definitions, Potential Reasons for Failure, and Therapeutic Options for Suboptimal Response

Real-life data reveal that more than half of severe asthma patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) do not achieve a complete response. Response to mAbs must be assessed holistically, considering all the clinically meaningful therapeutic goals, not only reduction of exacerbations and oral corticosteroids. There are 2 different ways of measuring the response to mAbs. One, qualitative, classifies patients according to the degree of disease control they have achieved, without explaining how much a given patient improves relative to the baseline (pre-mAb) clinical situation; the other, quantitative, scores the changes occurring after treatment. Both methods are complementary and essential to making clinical decisions on whether to continue treatment. The various potential causes of suboptimal response to mAbs include incorrect identification of the specific T2 pathways, comorbidities that reduce the room for improvement, insufficient dose, autoimmune phenomena, infections, change in the initial inflammatory endotype, and adverse events. Once a suboptimal response has been confirmed, a well-structured and multifaceted assessment of the potential causes of failure should be performed, with emphasis on the resulting inflammatory process of the airway after mAb therapy and the presence of chronic or recurrent infection. This investigation should guide the decision on the best therapeutic approach. The present review aims to help clinicians gain insights into how to measure response to mAbs and proceed in cases of suboptimal response (AU)

Los estudios clínicos en vida real revelan que más de la mitad de los pacientes con asma grave, tratados con anticuerpos monoclonales (mAb), no logran una respuesta completa. La respuesta a los mAbs debe evaluarse de manera integral, considerando todos los objetivos terapéuticos clínicamente significativos y no solo las exacerbaciones o la reducción de corticosteroides orales. Existen dos formas diferentes de medir la respuesta a los mAbs: una, cualitativa, que clasifica a los pacientes según el grado de control de la enfermedad que han logrado, sin explicar cuánto mejora un determinado paciente con respecto a su situación clínica basal (pre-mAb); y la otra, cuantitativa, la cual puntúa los cambios ocurridos después del tratamiento. Ambos métodos son complementarios y claramente esenciales a la hora de tomar decisiones clínicas sobre la continuación del tratamiento con estos fármacos biológicos. Se han descrito varias causas posibles de respuesta subóptima a los mAbs que son: la identificación incorrecta de las vías T2 específicas, las comorbilidades que reducen el margen de mejora, una dosis insuficiente, fenómenos autoinmunes, infecciones, cambio del endotipo inflamatorio inicial y la aparición de efectos adversos. na vez que se ha confirmado una respuesta subóptima, se debe realizar una evaluación bien estructurada y polifacética de estas posibles causas del fracaso, considerando, en particular, el proceso inflamatorio residual de las vías respiratorias tras la terapia con mAb y la presencia de infecciones crónicas o recurrentes. Esta evaluación es la que debe guiar las decisiones sobre el mejor enfoque terapéutico. Esta revisión tiene como objetivo ayudar a los clínicos a obtener un conocimiento más profundo sobre cómo medir la respuesta a los mAbs y cómo proceder con los pacientes que presenten una respuesta subóptima (AU)

Economic Consequences of the Overuse of Short-Acting ß-Adrenergic Agonists in the Treatment of Asthma in Spain

Objective: To determine the relationship between short-acting ß-adrenergic agonist (SABA) overuse and health care resource use and costs in asthma patients in routine clinical practice. Methods: A longitudinal retrospective study was conducted in Spanish primary and specialized care centers using the BIG-PAC medical records database. The study population comprised asthma patients ≥12 years of age who attended ≥2 consultations during 2017 and had 1-year follow-up data available. The main outcomes were demographics, comorbidities, medication, and clinical and health care resource use and costs. The relationship between SABA overuse and health care costs and between asthma severity and health care costs was determined. Results: The SABA use IN Asthma (SABINA) study included 39 555 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 49.8 (20.7) years (64.2% female). The Charlson comorbidity index was 0.7 (1.0). SABA overuse (≥3 canisters/y) was 28.7% (95%CI, 27.7-29.7), with a mean of 3.3 (3.6) canisters/y. Overall, 5.1% of patients were prescribed ≥12 canisters/y. SABA overuse was correlated with health care costs (ρ=0.621; P<.001). The adjusted mean annual cost/patient according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA 2019) classification of asthma severity was €2231, €2345, €2735, €3473, and €4243 for steps 1-5, respectively (P<.001). Regardless of asthma severity, SABA overuse yielded asignificant increase in health care costs per patient and year (€5702 vs €1917, P<.001) compared with recommended use (<2 canisters/y). Conclusion: SABA overuse yields high costs for the Spanish National Health System. Costs increased with severity of asthma (AU)

Objetivo: Determinar la relación entre la sobreutilización de agonistas beta adrenérgicos de acción corta (SABA) en pacientes con asma y el uso y coste de recursos sanitarios en la práctica clínica rutinaria. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio longitudinal retrospectivo en atención primaria y especializada en España, en el que se utilizó la base de datos de registros médicos BIG-PAC®. Se incluyeron pacientes con asma ≥12 años que asistieron a ≥2 consultas durante 2017 y con datos disponibles del seguimiento durante 1 año. Los principales resultados analizados fueron características demográficas, comorbilidades, medicaciones, y el uso y coste de recursos clínicos y sanitarios. Se determinó la relación de los costes sanitarios tanto con la sobreutilización de SABA como con la severidad del asma. Resultados: Este estudio sobre el uso de SABA en asma (SABINA, del inglés “SABA use IN Asthma”) incluyó a 39.555 pacientes, con una edad media (DE, desviación estándar) de 49,8 años (20,7); 64.2% fueron mujeres. La media del índice de comorbilidad Charlson fue 0,7 (1,0). La sobreutilización de SABA (≥3 envases/año) fue del 28,7% (IC95%: 27,7–29,7), con una media global de 3,3 envases (3,6) /año. En total, el 5,1% de los pacientes fueron prescritos con ≥12 envases/año. La sobreutilización de SABA correlacionó con los costes sanitarios (ρ = 0,621; p < 0,001). El coste medio anual/paciente según la clasificación de severidad del asma de la Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA 2019) fue de 2.231 €, 2.345 €, 2.735 €, 3.473 €, y 4.243 €, para los pasos 1-5, respectivamente (p < 0,001) (AU)

FeNO for Asthma Diagnosis in Adults: More Lights Than Shadows / Utilidad del FeNO para el diagnóstico de asma en el adulto: más luces que sombras

No disponible

Assessing Adherence by Combining the Test of Adherence to Inhalers With Pharmacy Refill Records.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends the concurrent use of self-report and pharmacy refill data to assess treatment adherence. However, clinical evidence to support this combined approach is limited. Objective: To determine nonadherence to inhaler medication based on a validated questionnaire (Test of Adherence to Inhalers; TAI) and prescription refill data in a community sample of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma. Secondarily, we sought to determine the degree of concordance between these two measures. METHODS: Cross-sectional, observational multicenter study in patients with asthma or COPD. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained from clinical records. Refill data were retrieved from electronic pharmacy databases. Participants completed the 12-item TAI during a single visit as part of routine care. Nonadherence was defined as TAI <50 or <80% pharmacy refill rate (PRR) in the previous 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 816 patients (mean age, 60) were included. Nonadherence rates were 58.1% (TAI) and 28.6% (PRR) compared with 64.6% for the combined data (P<.0001). Concordance between the 2 measures was weak (к=0.205). CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the GINA recommendations, indicating that concomitant use of the TAI and pharmacy refill data identifies a higher percentage of nonadherent asthma or COPD patients than either instrument alone.