'Like a fish on dry land': an explorative qualitative study into severe asthma and the impact of biologicals on patients' everyday life

Pulmonary rehabilitation and family/friend caregivers: the hidden reciprocal relationship improving outcomes in chronic respiratory diseases

INTRODUCTION

The experiences and needs of living with chronic respiratory diseases (CRD) can be overwhelming. Individuals often rely on informal care for daily assistance and having a family/friend caregiver has been associated with better health outcomes. Nevertheless, family/friend caregivers frequently feel alone and unsupported. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) leads to multidimensional benefits across CRD and individuals have suggested improvements for PR. Family/friend caregivers highly support PR in practical and psychosocial ways and have identified this intervention as an opportunity to be supported. This reciprocal relationship between PR and the family/friend caregivers has been scarcely explored and its importance for the management of CRD is poorly understood.

AREAS COVERED

This perspective synthesizes the experiences and needs of living with CRD from the perspective of people with CRD and their family/friend caregivers; and proposes a vision of a reciprocal/symbiotic relationship, through PR, for optimizing care for people with CRD and their caregivers.

EXPERT OPINION

A deeper understanding/recognition of the extensiveness and somewhat overlap of the experiences and unmet needs of individuals with CRD and their family/friend caregivers; and of the reciprocal/symbiotic relationship between PR and the family/friend caregivers might be important to optimizing management and, ultimately, individuals and caregivers' outcomes in CRD.

Mixed-methods evaluation of an enhanced asthma biologics clinical pathway in the West Midlands UK

Biologic treatments can alleviate severe asthma symptoms and reduce health service use. However, service capacity limits and low referral rates from primary care indicate unmet patient need. We report a mixed-methods evaluation of an enhanced severe asthma pathway implemented in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, UK which aimed to optimise primary care referrals through training/education, and increased capacity in specialist clinics. Quantitative analysis assessed patient wait times between pathway stages, prescribing changes, exacerbations, hospital admissions and asthma control. Interviews with 12 stakeholders evaluated perceptions of the enhanced pathway across settings. In 12 months, 564 patients from 28 general practices were reviewed for biologics eligibility, of whom 125 (22.2%) were referred for specialist assessment. Wait times were significantly lower under the enhanced pathway when compared against historic patients following the standard pathway, and reduced overall from a mean of 76.4 to 26.7 weeks between referral and biologics initiation (p < 0.001). Patients commencing biologics (n = 46) showed significantly reduced reliever inhaler prescribing rates (p = 0.037), 60% lower oral steroid use (p < 0.001), significantly reduced exacerbation rates (p < 0.001) and fewer hospital admissions (p < 0.001) compared with the 12 months pre-treatment. Mean asthma control scores reduced from 3.13 pre-initiation to 1.89 post-initiation (p < 0.001) - a clinically significant improvement. Interviewees viewed the enhanced pathway positively, although ongoing issues related to difficulties engaging primary care amid concerns around increased workloads and pathway capacity. The large number of referrals generated from a comparatively small number of general practices confirms substantial unmet need that an enhanced severe asthma pathway could help address if implemented routinely.

Exploring Perceptions of Biologic Therapies: A Qualitative Study Among Canadians Living with Severe Asthma

INTRODUCTION

Biologic therapies have demonstrated benefits for individuals with severe asthma, including reduced daily symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, data describing patient perspectives on these treatments are limited. This study sought to understand the preferences and priorities of Canadians with severe asthma in the context of novel biologic treatment options.

METHODS

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted among Canadians with severe asthma from July to August 2022. Purposeful sampling included individuals with and without biologic therapy experience. All participants described daily life with severe asthma, experiences and priorities related to asthma treatment and their impressions of biologics. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to explore patterns in the data.

RESULTS

Among 18 individuals included, 10 were currently taking or had prior experience with biologic treatment for asthma. Those who had never been treated with biologics were unfamiliar with them, considering treatment, or believed that they may not be eligible. Four themes were developed to convey the perspectives of participants on biologics: (1) life-changing benefits, but not for all; (2) navigating barriers to being prescribed and remaining adherent to biologic treatments; (3) treatment administration preferences are not only about convenience; (4) concerns about safety and the unknown as a source of treatment hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that the clinical benefits of biologics align with patient perceptions of achieving good asthma control. However, treatment gaps persist among individuals who do not experience a meaningful improvement in their asthma symptoms and those who face barriers accessing biologics. People with severe asthma attributed importance to greater availability of at-home treatment options, improved access to financial support to cover treatment costs and support to address safety concerns. This research provides insight into patient-based treatment priorities and preferences for biologics, which may help inform decision-making related to emerging therapies for severe asthma.

Developments in the Management of Severe Asthma in Children and Adolescents: Focus on Dupilumab and Tezepelumab

Severe asthma in children and adolescents exerts a substantial health, financial, and societal burden. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition with multiple clinical phenotypes and underlying inflammatory patterns that might be different in individual patients. Various add-on treatments have been developed to treat severe asthma, including monoclonal antibodies (biologics) targeting inflammatory mediators. Biologics that are currently approved to treat children (≥ 6 years of age) or adolescents (≥ 12 years of age) with severe asthma include: anti-immunoglobulin E (omalizumab), anti-interleukin (IL)-5 (mepolizumab), anti-IL5 receptor (benralizumab), anti-IL4/IL13 receptor (dupilumab), and antithymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) (tezepelumab). However, access to these targeted treatments varies across countries and relies on few and crude indicators. There is a need for better treatment stratification to guide which children might benefit from these treatments. In this narrative review we will assess the most recent developments in the treatment of severe pediatric asthma, as well as potential biomarkers to assess treatment efficacy for this patient population.

Narrative review to capture patients' perceptions and opinions about non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There are now many biological therapies to treat severe asthma. To assess which work best for which patient, we need to develop definitions of response. This narrative review aims to capture severe asthma patients' perceptions about non-response and response to biological therapy.

METHODS

Four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Grey literature was searched with the involvement of patient representatives. A thematic approach was used for synthesis. No qualitative studies specifically explore patients' perspectives on response to biological therapy for severe asthma. Three papers and one published asthma patient interview were included. Relevant grey literature was included from online discussion forums, blogs and social media websites.

RESULTS

Adult patients framed positive response to biological therapy in terms of reduced burden of disease and treatment. Both were multifaceted. Some patients experienced reduced benefit from biological therapy over time. There was a group of patients who described a limited response or non-response to biological therapy. This was framed within the context of continuing hospitalisation and oral corticosteroid treatment. The speed of onset of benefit was felt to be important by some.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitions of non-response and response need to be patient-centred, yet there is a complete lack of qualitative research focused on this topic. By combining relevant published and grey literature we have provided a description of adult patients' perceptions of response to biological therapy in severe asthma. We now need to understand the views of children and adolescents with severe asthma and their carers, and diverse patient experiences in real-world settings.

"Life-changing": the experience of super-responders to biologics in severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There is limited information on the patient's perspective of how biologic treatments impact their lives. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the patient's experience of being considered a super-responder from a quality of life perspective.

METHODS

Patients with severe asthma identified as super-responders were invited to semi-structured interviews conducted online. Participants could bring a family member/friend to the interview. The interviews explored experiences of biologic treatment, were transcribed and underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-five participants took part in this study. Themes emerged on the impact of biologic treatment for participants and for their friends/family: (i) Words used to describe their often life-changing experiences and (ii) the positive changes noted. Biologic treatment stopped the disruption of family life and social life caused by exacerbations. Improvements in mental health were also noted. Marked individual variations in the way it affected their lives were noted. Most participants noticed improvements 2-3 months after starting their biologic, but some noticed improvement within a few days and others after 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Super-responders reported profound but heterogeneous improvements following biologic treatment beyond asthma symptoms and exacerbations including important benefits to social and family life. Improvements may be underestimated as social and family benefits are not reliably measured in current studies with implications for health economic evaluations. Not all patients are super-responders, and excellent responses may be lost in group mean data in trials. Individual time course and response patterns need further elucidation to identify who will respond best to biologics.