German regional variation of acute and high oral corticosteroid use for asthma

Systemic Corticosteroids for Treating Respiratory Diseases: Less Is Better, but… When and How Is It Possible in Real Life?

Systemic corticosteroids (CSs), a keystone in pulmonology, are drugs with strong antiinflammatory activity. They are cheap, easily available, and accessible, but with common and serious side effects. Moreover, the use of exogenous CSs may suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, predisposing to adrenal insufficiency. Safe CS treatment is a challenge of pharmacological research. This narrative review examined the indications of CSs in some respiratory diseases, analyzing what types, dosages, and length of treatment are required as the dosage and duration of CS treatments need to be minimized. Chronic maintenance treatments with CSs are associated with poor prognosis, but they are still prescribed in patients with severe asthma, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung diseases. When CS discontinuation is not possible, all efforts should be made to achieve clinically meaningful reductions. Guidelines suggest the use of methylprednisolone at a dose of 20-40 mg/day or equivalent for up to 10 days in subjects with COVID-19 pneumonia (but not other respiratory viral diseases) and respiratory failure, exacerbations of asthma, and COPD. Some guidelines suggest that CS treatment shorter than 10-14 days can be abruptly stopped, strictly monitoring subjects with unexplained symptoms after CS withdrawal, who should promptly be tested for adrenal insufficiency (AI) and eventually treated. CSs are often used in severe community-acquired pneumonia associated with markedly increased serum inflammation markers, in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in septic shock unresponsive to hydro-saline replenishment and vasopressors, and acute exacerbations of interstitial lung diseases. As these cases often require higher doses and longer duration of CS treatment, CS tapering should be gradual and, when useful, supported by an evaluation of HPA axis function.

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.

[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.

Trends and predictors of specialist assessments in oral corticosteroid treated asthma among young adults

Background

Repeated oral corticosteroid use indicates uncontrolled disease among asthma patients and referral for asthma specialist assessment is recommended. We aimed to describe trends and predictors associated with specialist contacts among young adults with asthma and repeated oral corticosteroid use.

Methods

Individuals aged 18–45 years with ≥2 dispensed asthma medication prescriptions and two dispended oral corticosteroid prescriptions (including short-term and long-term treatments) within 12 months during 1999–2018 were identified by use of Danish healthcare registers. The frequency of specialist contacts within 1 year of follow-up was assessed among individuals without previous specialist contacts within 5 years of inclusion. Factors associated with specialist contact were identified by logistic regression models. Furthermore, oral corticosteroid prescriber sources were assessed.

Results

For the 11 223 individuals included, 2444 (22%) had previous specialist contacts care within 5 years prior of inclusion and additionally 926 (8.3%) within 1 year of follow-up. Among those without previous specialist contacts (n 8779), the frequency of incident specialist contacts within 1 year of follow-up increased from 6.3% in 1999 to 18% in 2017. Factors associated with incident specialist contacts included dispensing ≥12 SABA canisters and previous asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations. The majority of oral corticosteroid prescriptions at baseline (71%) were prescribed by general practitioners, though with decreasing proportions from 1999–2018.

Conclusions

The majority (70%) of young adults with asthma and repeated oral corticosteroid use do not seem to receive specialist assessment in Denmark. This highlights a potential room for improvement in the patient referral pathway for at-risk asthma patients.

Regional differences in the incidence of asthma exacerbations in Japan: A heat map analysis of healthcare insurance claims data

BACKGROUND

In Japan, regional differences in asthma mortality have been reported; however, regional differences in asthma exacerbations have not been studied extensively. Therefore, using a health insurance claims database, we investigated the regional differences in the incidence of asthma exacerbations in Japan.

METHODS

This study used data from Medi-Scope (Japan Medical Information Research Institute Inc., Japan)-a nationwide health insurance claims database. Patients with asthma at the index date (the latest date of an asthma-related prescription with an asthma diagnosis before October 1, 2018) were included in the analysis. The pre-index period was defined as 1 year before the index date, and the follow-up period as 1 year after the index date. The incidence of asthma exacerbation events was analyzed for each region.

RESULTS

The primary analysis population comprised 24,883 patients who were continuously prescribed ICS or ICS/LABA at least four times during the pre-index period. The incidence rate of asthma exacerbations with hospitalization was the highest in Chugoku (2.95/100 person-years [95% CI, 1.97-4.43]) and the lowest in Kanto (1.52/100 person-years [95% CI, 1.26-1.83]). The incidence rate of asthma exacerbations for the composite outcome of hospitalization, injectable corticosteroid prescription, and oral corticosteroid burst was the highest in Fukui (105.00/100 person-years [95% CI, 64.53-170.85]) and the lowest in Nagasaki (15.69/100 person-years [95% CI, 10.84-22.72]).

CONCLUSIONS

Regional differences in the incidence of asthma exacerbations as well as their treatments were observed in Japan.