Prevalence of oral corticosteroid use in the German severe asthma population

Biologics in allergology and clinical immunology: Update on therapies for atopic diseases, urticaria, and angioedema and on safety aspects focusing on hypersensitivity reactions

The development of targeted therapies for atopic diseases, urticaria, and angioedema with biologics is progressing rapidly: New "targets" of clinical-therapeutic relevance have been identified, the corresponding targeted antibodies developed, tested in clinical trials, and approved for therapy. These include the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab (also effective and approved for the treatment of urticaria), the anti-IL-4/13 receptor-specific antibody dupilumab, the two anti-IL-13 antibodies lebrikizumab and tralokinumab, the anti-TSLP antibody tezepelumab, the two anti-IL-5 antibodies mepolizumab and reslizumab, and the anti-IL5 receptor-specific antibody benralizumab for the treatment of atopic diseases. For the treatment of hereditary angioedema, C1 inhibitor and the antibody lanadelumab (directed against kallikrein) have also long been approved as biologics in addition to low-molecular substances. Other therapeutic antibodies are in various stages of development. Furthermore, the range of indications for some very effective biologics has been successfully expanded to include additional diseases. In this context, the first results on biologic therapy of food allergy and eosinophilic esophagitis are interesting. Biologics that address different target structures are also increasingly being administered in combination, either simultaneously or sequentially, in order to achieve optimal efficacy. A developing area is the use of biologics in children and the observation of immunological and non-immunological side effects. In some cases, new unexpected side effects and hypersensitivity reactions have emerged, which in turn raise pathomechanistic questions, such as conjunctivitis with dupilumab therapy, which only appears to occur in the treatment of atopic dermatitis but not in the treatment of other atopic diseases. In dermatology, paradoxical reactions have been described under therapy with some biologics. And immune reactions of type alpha to epsilon to biologics (hypersensitivity reactions) continue to be a clinically relevant problem, whereby the selection of an alternative therapeutic agent is a challenge and the diagnostics that support this have not yet been sufficiently incorporated into routine work.

Maintenance OCS Were Used More Frequently Than Biologics in Patients with Uncontrolled GINA 4/5 Asthma in Germany in 2019

Purpose

Asthma is affecting 4-5% of all adults (10% of children) in Germany, ≥ half are inadequately controlled. In 2019 up to 54 thousand patients suffered from severe uncontrolled asthma, 52% were treated/co-treated by pneumonologists. 45% of them had continuous oral corticosteroid (OCS)- and short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) overuse for ≥2 years. The aim of the current study was to analyze the main treatments, escalation schemes and the adherence to the GINA recommendations.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective analysis in 2021 based on data from January to December 2019 in Germany, using the IQVIA™ LRx prescription database and the IQVIA™ Disease Analyzer database containing anonymized electronic medical records as the main data sources.

Results

In 2019 25,200 patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma treated in a pneumonologist´s practice in Germany received GINA 3 (0,4%), GINA 4 (76%) or GINA 5 therapy (24%) during the study year compared to 59% GINA 5 therapy in the 5-10% (1,500-3,000) co-treated in a specialized outpatient department. In Pneumonologists` practices the most frequent choice in GINA 5 was OCS in 69% of patients (biologicals 37%, long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) 20%) compared to 66% biologicals, 55% OCS, and 25% LAMA in the outpatient department. 54,958 of 613,000 GINA 4/5 patients were treated with OCS, 9,725 even with doses above the so called "Cushing threshold" for prednisolone of 2700 mg/year. After introduction of a biological treatment, patients reduced their SABA prescriptions by 28%, OCS by 55%, and OCS overall exposure by 40%, one-third did not need OCS anymore.

Conclusion

In 75% of patients with uncontrolled asthma for ≥2 years therapy was not escalated beyond GINA 4 or low dose OCS was used as the most frequent add-on treatment in GINA 5 contradictory to treatment recommendations. Use of biologics reduced on demand rescue medication and OCS use.

Asthma management, focused on the use of oral corticosteroids: the opinions of Italian asthmatic patients

OBJECTIVE

Patients' perceptions of asthma symptoms, and attitudes regarding diagnosis and management, can affect their ability to reach good asthma control. The aim of the study was to explore patients' perceptions of asthma management, with focus on treatment with oral corticosteroids (OCS).

METHODS

A DOXAPHARMA survey was conducted. A questionnaire with 46 multiple choice questions was completed by 50 patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, and 258 with mild-moderate controlled or partly controlled asthma. Participants were representative of Italian asthmatic patients-with medium age, long asthma duration, delayed diagnosis, poor asthma control, and frequent exacerbations.

RESULTS

Many asthmatics reported inadequate pharmacologic treatment. The majority but not all patients regularly used ICS/LABA. Oral treatment was common, mainly with OCS, particularly in severe asthmatics. One-fourth of patients did not regularly use inhaled therapy, and adherence was poor, resulting in frequent OCS use to treat exacerbations, which were common in mild-moderate cases. Patients were fairly satisfied with asthma therapies, but many had concerns about long-term corticosteroid use. Patients complained about poor management of comorbidities associated with asthma and OCS use, but were generally satisfied with their patient/doctor relationships. Many patients failed to achieve optimal health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mainly those with severe asthma who used OCS treatment and emphasized how OCS therapy impacted QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey results confirmed many problems related to mild-moderate and severe asthma management in Italy and highlighted the overuse of OCS rather than more effective and safe treatments, which had strong negative effects on HRQoL.

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.

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.

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 β2-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.

A Charter to Fundamentally Change the Role of Oral Corticosteroids in the Management of Asthma

Asthma affects 339 million people worldwide, with an estimated 5-10% experiencing severe asthma. In emergency settings, oral corticosteroids (OCS) can be lifesaving, but acute and long-term treatment can produce clinically important adverse outcomes and increase the risk of mortality. Therefore, global guidelines recommend limiting the use of OCS. Despite the risks, research indicates that 40-60% of people with severe asthma are receiving or have received long-term OCS treatment. Although often perceived as a low-cost option, long-term OCS use can result in significant health impairments and costs owing to adverse outcomes and increased utilization of healthcare resources. Alternative treatment methods, such as biologics, may produce cost-saving benefits with a better safety profile. A comprehensive and concerted effort is necessary to tackle the continued reliance on OCS. Accordingly, a threshold for OCS use should be established to help identify patients at risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Receiving a total dose of more than 500 mg per year should trigger a review and specialist referral. Changes to national and local policies, following examples from other chronic diseases, will be crucial to achieving this goal. Globally, multiple barriers to change still exist, but specific steps have been identified to help clinicians reduce reliance on OCS. Implementing these changes will result in positive health outcomes for patients and social and economic benefits for societies.

[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.

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.

Characteristics of Oral Corticosteroid Users Among Persons with Asthma on GINA Step 3 Therapy and Above: A Cross-Sectional Study in Portuguese Community Pharmacies

PURPOSE

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are frequently used in asthma management but have an important risk-profile. The aim of the study is to characterize and compare the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, treatment regimen and asthma control between OCS users and non-users among the population of asthma patients (≥18 years) at GINA step 3 and above treated with a fixed combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study in Portuguese community pharmacies. Data was collected via paper-based interview delivered at the pharmacy (sociodemographic characteristics and asthma treatment regimen, namely ICS/LABA and OCS utilization), followed by a telephonic interview collecting smoking history, comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), history of exacerbations and asthma-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in the previous 12 months, as well as asthma control using the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT®).

RESULTS

A total of 347 patients recruited in 98 pharmacies were included in the analysis. Of those, 328 had completed both questionnaires. A quarter of the individuals reported OCS use in the previous 12 months (OCS users), either as add-on therapy (6%) or exacerbation treatment (19%). Patients were mostly females (72%), with an average age of 59.5 years (SD=15.4). OCS users were significantly older and reported more frequently having conjunctivitis (25.9% vs 15.0%), osteoporosis (25.9% vs 13.4%), arthritis (14.6% vs 6.9%), and gastrointestinal disease (16.1% vs 8.1%). OCS users also reported greater urgent HCRU: unscheduled consultations (33.3% vs 9.3%) and emergency department (ED) visits (32.1% vs 12.1%). Both groups presented poor disease control (85.2% of OCS users vs 72.9% of non-OCS users).

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the burden of OCS therapy to asthma patients and the need to improve asthma management, by adopting OCS sparing strategies in this subgroup of patients.

Overuse of Oral Corticosteroids in Asthma Is Often Underdiagnosed and Inadequately Addressed

BACKGROUND

Overuse of oral corticosteroids (OCS) is associated with serious adverse effects. It is currently unknown what proportion of patients with asthma regularly use these drugs, or whether they are optimally treated by specialists to minimize the use of these drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate (1) the prevalence of patients requiring ≥2 courses or maintenance use of OCS (ie, frequent users), (2) their use of inhaled corticosteroids, and (3) who prescribed their asthma medications.

METHODS

We analyzed OCS prescription data (Dutch IQVIA Prescription Database) focusing on adult patients receiving asthma medication between March 2017 and March 2018 (focus year). An OCS course was defined as ≥20 mg prednisolone equivalent for 3 to 28 days; maintenance OCS as 2.5 to 17.5 mg/day for >28 days. Prescribers were classified as specialist or general practitioners.

RESULTS

Of 182,849 adults taking asthma medications, 77.8% had not received a prescription for OCS and 7.2% of patients were frequent OCS users: 2.6% received ≥2 OCS courses and 4.6% were on maintenance OCS. Of the frequent OCS users, 45.8% received only low or medium doses (<500 μg/day) of inhaled corticosteroids. Within the preceding 3 years (2014-2017), 51.1% and 34.3% of patients prescribed ≥2 OCS courses or maintenance OCS, respectively, had received prescriptions from a general practitioner without medication adjustments by a specialist.

CONCLUSION

This prescription-fill study shows that 7.2% of Dutch patients with asthma were overexposed to OCS, of whom only about half used adequate doses of inhaled corticosteroids, and 40.3% had not received specialist intervention within the previous 3 years. This suggests that OCS overuse is often underdiagnosed and inadequately addressed.

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.

Reducing Tolerance for SABA and OCS towards the Extreme Ends of Asthma Severity

Asthma is a heterogeneous chronic inflammatory airway disease that imposes a great burden on public health worldwide. In the past two years, fundamental changes have been addressed in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendations focusing mainly on the management of mild and severe asthma. The use of as-needed treatment containing inhaled corticosteroids plus fast-acting bronchodilators (either short or long-acting formoterol) in mild asthma has dominated the field, and both randomized and real-world studies favor such an approach and associate it with fewer exacerbations and good asthma control. At the same time, the effort to diminish the use of oral steroids (OCS) as maintenance treatment in severe asthma was substantially accomplished with the initiation of treatment with biologics. Still, these options are available at the moment only for severe asthmatics with a T2-high endotype, and relevant studies on biologics have yielded, as a primary outcome, the reduction or even cessation of OCS. Accordingly, OCS should be considered as a temporary option, mainly for the treatment of asthma exacerbations, and as a maintenance treatment only for a minority of patients with severe asthma, after ensuring good inhaler technique, modification of all possible contributory factors and comorbidities, and optimized pharmacotherapy using all other add-on treatments including biologics in the armamentarium of anti-asthma medication.

Real-life Cretan asthma registry focused on severe asthma: On behalf of 'The Cretan registry of the use of Biologics in Severe Asthma'

Asthma diagnosis and management remains a challenging task for the medical community. The aim of the present study was to present the functional and inflammatory profiles of patients with difficult-to-treat asthma in a real-life clinical setting referred to the specialized asthma clinic at the University Hospital of Heraklion. The registry included a cohort of 267 patients who were referred to the severe asthma clinic. Patients were assessed with emphasis on the history of allergies, nasal polyposis or other comorbidities. Blood testing for eosinophils counts and total and specific IgE, and pulmonary function tests were performed at baseline. The median age of patients with asthma was 55 years old, 68.5% were women and 58.3% were never smokers. The vast majority presented with late onset asthma (75.7%), whereas eight (3%) patients were on oral corticosteroids. The median number of exacerbations during the last 12 months was 1 (0-3). Furthermore, 50.7% of patients had a positive serum allergy test, the median eosinophil count was 300 (188-508.5) cells/µl of blood and median total IgE level was 117.5 (29.4-360.5) IU/ml. Patients were retrospectively grouped in the following categories: Group 1, mild-moderate asthma; group 2, patients prescribed a step 4 or 5 asthma therapy according to Global Initiative for Asthma; and group 3, patients on biologic agents. Group 1 had significantly higher FEV1% than groups 2 and 3 (93.4 vs. 79.9 and 79.4%, respectively; P<0.001). Finally, the median Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 (ACQ7) score was 1.14, with patients from groups 2 and 3 presenting higher ACQ7 scores compared with group 1 patients as expected (1.1 and 2.1 vs. 0.7, respectively; P<0.001). To the best of our knowledge, this was the first real-life asthma study in Crete that demonstrated that severe asthmatics predominantly have late-onset asthma with airflow obstruction and uncontrolled symptoms.

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.

Precision medicine reaching out to the patients in allergology - a German-Japanese workshop report

An expert workshop in collaboration of the German Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and the Japanese Society of Allergy (JSA) provided a platform for key opinion leaders of both countries aimed to join expertise and to highlight current developments and achievements in allergy research. Key domains of the meeting included the following seven main sections and related subchapters: 1) basic immunology, 2) bronchial asthma, 3) prevention of allergic diseases, 4) food allergy and anaphylaxis, 5) atopic dermatitis, 6) venom allergy, and 7) upper airway diseases. This report provides a summary of panel discussions of all seven domains and highlights unmet needs and project possibilities of enhanced collaborations of scientific projects.

Patients' experiences of asthma exacerbation and management: a qualitative study of severe asthma

Exacerbation is a defining feature of severe asthma, and oral corticosteroids (OCSs) are frequently prescribed to manage exacerbations. This qualitative study was conducted to examine the experience of patients with severe asthma, with a focus on asthma exacerbation and OCS treatment.

Adults with severe asthma were recruited from three tertiary hospitals in South Korea. Data were collected through in-depth qualitative interviews. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method to uncover the meaning of the participants’ experience. Recruitment of participants continued until thematic saturation.

14 patients with severe asthma were recruited. Four theme clusters emerged: 1) experience of asthma exacerbation; 2) impact on life; 3) OCS treatments; and 4) disease perception. The patients experienced severe physical and psychosocial distress from asthma exacerbations, felt helpless due to failed efforts to prevent exacerbation and were living a restricted life due to fear of exacerbation. They feared OCS side-effects but had no other choice than to rely on OCSs because other interventions were ineffective. Most had poor knowledge and understanding of severe asthma and the long-term health consequences.

Asthma exacerbation affects wide aspects of life in patients with severe asthma. Several components may underlie reliance on OCSs, including experience of distress during exacerbation, fear of future exacerbation and lack of proper knowledge about the long-term health consequences of severe asthma and OCS treatments. A multi-disciplinary approach is warranted to support the patients and to provide systematic education about the long-term health implications of severe asthma.

Exacerbation widely affects the lives of people with severe asthma. Distress during exacerbation and fear of future exacerbations may underlie oral steroid reliance. Systematic patient education is warranted about the long-term health implications.https://bit.ly/3lhsBiN

Persistent Uncontrolled Asthma: Long-Term Impact on Physical Activity and Body Composition

Rationale

Asthma, obesity and physical activity (PA) are interrelated. However, longitudinal data with objective PA measures and direct assessment of body composition are still lacking.

Objective

To study the impact of symptom control on PA and body composition.

Methods

In a longitudinal cohort study of the German Center for Lung Research, we assessed the body composition of 233 asthma patients and 84 healthy controls using bioelectrical impedance analysis. PA (ie average daily steps and time of at least moderate activity, steps/min) was measured by accelerometry for one week. Asthma control was assessed by ACT score, ACQ-5 score and history of severe exacerbations. After two years of follow-up, we studied changes in physical activity and body composition in relation to asthma control.

Results

Patients with uncontrolled asthma had increased fat mass and decreased muscle mass compared to patients with controlled asthma or healthy controls. Both fat mass and muscle mass correlated better with asthma control than the body mass index (BMI). In multivariate regressions adjusted for age and sex, asthma control and physical activity were independent predictors of body composition (R² = 0.61, p < 0.001). Persistent uncontrolled asthma patients (n=64) had lower physical activity at both baseline (6614 steps/118 min) and follow-up (6195/115). Despite having stable BMI, they also had significant muscle loss (−1.2%, −0.88 kg, p<0.01) and fat accumulation (+1%, +1.1 kg, p<0.01). By contrast, temporarily uncontrolled or controlled asthma patients had higher physical activity at baseline (8670/156) and follow -up (9058/153) with almost unchanged body composition.

Conclusion

Persistent uncontrolled asthma is associated with sustained physical inactivity and adverse changes in body composition that might be overlooked by relying solely on BMI. Physical activity is an independent predictor of body composition and reliable long-term marker of symptom control.

Biologics for atopic diseases: Indication, side effect management, and new developments

With the advent of biologicals, more and more therapeutics are available that specifically address specific switch points in the pathomechanism of immunologically dominated diseases. Thus, the focus of diagnostics and therapy (precision medicine) is more on the individual disease characteristics of the individual patient. Regarding the different phenotypes of atopic diseases, severe asthma was the first entity for which biologicals were approved, followed by urticaria, and finally atopic dermatitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Experience in the treatment of severe bronchial asthma has shown that the intensity of the response to biological therapy depends on the quality of clinical and immunological phenotyping of the patients. This also applies to different diseases of the atopic form, as patients can suffer from several atopic diseases at the same time, each with different characteristics. Biologics are already emerging that may represent a suitable therapy for allergic bronchial asthma, which often occurs together with severe neurodermatitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. In practice, however, the question of possible combinations of biologicals for the therapy of complex clinical pictures of individual patients is increasingly arising. In doing so, the side effect profile must be taken into account, including hypersensitivity reactions, whose diagnostic and logistical management must aim at a safe and efficient therapy of the underlying disease. Increased attention must also be paid to biological therapy in pregnancy and planned (predictable) vaccinations as well as existing infections, such as SARS-CoV-2 infection. Before starting a biological therapy, the immune status should be checked with regard to chronic viral and bacterial infections and, if necessary, the vaccination status should be refreshed or missing vaccinations should be made up for before starting therapy. Currently, reliable data on the effect of biologicals on the immunological situation of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 are not available. Therefore, research and development of suitable diagnostic methods for detection of immunologically caused side effects as well as detection of potential therapy responders and non-responders is of great importance.

Oral corticosteroid prescription for asthma by general practitioners: A three-year analysis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Regular treatment of patients with asthma with oral corticosteroids (OCS) remains common despite potential severe side effects and alternative treatment options. However, there is limited data on the prevalence of OCS prescriptions for patients with asthma in Germany.

METHODS

Records from 1039 General practitioners for the years 2015-2017 in the German IMS® Disease Analyzer database were retrospectively analysed for patients with at least two confirmed asthma diagnoses (ICD-10) per observed year, representing approximately 30,000 patients per year. Asthma treatment steps (1-5) were assigned according to the German national guideline, based on prescribed therapies.

RESULTS

In the years 2015-2017, 20.3-21.3% of patients were classified as being in treatment step 1, 4.7-5.2% in step 2, 38.8-40.1% in step 3, 31.7-32.1% in step 4 and 2.7-3.2% in step 5. Proportions of patients treated with OCS >30 days/year were 9.4% (2015), 9.6% (2016) and 8.9% (2017), reducing to 8.1%, 8.2% and 7.4%, respectively, when patients with other inflammatory diseases possibly requiring OCS treatment were excluded. Use of OCS >30 days/year was more prevalent in patients aged >65 years (14.1-15.0%) than those aged 18-65 years (6.8-7.8%). Median daily prednisolone dose was 10-15 mg/day. Approximately 30% of patients treated with OCS >30 days/year were not in step 5 (based on their prescribed inhaled therapies).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that a substantial proportion of patients with asthma in non-specialised care in Germany receive OCS prescriptions regularly, despite the availability of less harmful alternative treatment options.

Patterns of oral corticosteroids use in primary care patients with severe asthma

AIM

To assess the pattern of use of oral corticosteroids (OC) in primary care patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

Data derived from the Health Search Database (HSD) gathering information on 700 Italian general practitioners. A cohort of severe asthma patients was identified between 2013 and 2017 and followed-up for one year. The association between candidate predictors and the incident escalation to OC was tested through a multivariate Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Among patients with asthma (N = 55,075), 284 were diagnosed with severe asthma. Among them, the proportion of OC users decreased from 82.2% in 2013 to 75.3% in 2017. For what concerns the determinants of OC prescriptions, among 284 patients being defined at baseline (2013-2016) as those suffering from severe asthma, 216 (76.1%) were first-ever prescribed with OC at least once during one year of follow-up. The presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.02-1.85), osteoarthritis (HR 1.54; 95% CI 1.12-2.12) and moderate asthma exacerbations (HR 1.72; 95% CI 1-02-2.93) was significantly associated with the outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimization of asthma treatment and the management of comorbidities may be potential leverages to reduce the inappropriate use of OC in patients with severe asthma.

Associations among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with asthma, pneumonia, and corticosteroid use in the general population

Purpose

To evaluate the association among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with asthma, steroid use, and pneumonia in the general population.

Methods

Using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database to identify patients with incident pneumonia, we established a COPD with asthma cohort of 12,538 patients and a COPD cohort of 25,069 patients. In both cohorts, the risk of incident pneumonia was assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for incident pneumonia was 2.38 (2.14, 2.66) in the COPD with asthma cohort, regardless of age, sex, comorbidities, and drug use. COPD cohort without inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) use served as a reference. The aHR (95% CI) for COPD cohort with ICSs use was 1.34 (0.98, 1.83); that for COPD with asthma cohort without ICSs use was 2.46 (2.20, 2.76); and that for COPD with asthma cohort with ICSs use was 2.32 (1.99, 2.72). COPD cohort without oral steroids (OSs) use served as a reference; the aHR (95% CI) for COPD with asthma cohort without OSs use and with OSs use was 3.25 (2.72, 3.89) and 2.38 (2.07, 2.74), respectively.

Conclusions

The COPD with asthma cohort had a higher risk of incident pneumonia, regardless of age, sex, comorbidities, and ICSs or OSs use. COPD cohort with ICSs use did not have a notable risk of incident pneumonia. The COPD with asthma cohort had a higher risk of incident pneumonia, even without ICSs/OSs use.