Concomitant asthma medication use by patients receiving omalizumab 2003-2008

Systematic Literature Review of Systemic Corticosteroid Use for Asthma Management

Systemic corticosteroid use to manage uncontrolled asthma and its associated healthcare burden may account for important health-related adverse effects. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the real-world extent and burden of systemic corticosteroid use in asthma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify English-language articles published in 2010–2017, using search terms for asthma with keywords for oral corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids. Observational studies, prescription database analyses, economic analyses, and surveys on oral/systemic corticosteroid use in children (>5 yr old), adolescents (12–17 yr old), and adults with asthma were included. We identified and reviewed 387 full-text articles, and our review included data from 139 studies. The included studies were conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia. Overall, oral/systemic corticosteroids were commonly used for asthma management and were more frequently used in patients with severe asthma than in those with milder disease. Long-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use was, in general, less frequent than short-term use. Compared with no use, long-term and repeated short-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use were associated with an increased risk of acute and chronic adverse events, even when doses were comparatively low. Greater oral/systemic corticosteroid exposure was also associated with increased costs and healthcare resource use. This review provides a comprehensive overview of oral/systemic corticosteroid use and associated adverse events for patients with all degrees of asthma severity and exposure duration. We report that oral/systemic corticosteroid use is prevalent in asthma management, and the risks of acute and chronic complications increase with the cumulative oral corticosteroid dosage.

Effectiveness of the Polish program for the treatment of severe allergic asthma with omalizumab: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

A national program for the treatment of severe allergic (IgE-dependent) asthma with omalizumab (OMA) was implemented in Poland in 2013. This observational study evaluated the effectiveness of the Polish OMA program and monitored asthma control after treatment discontinuation.

METHODS

In the first year of the program, 53 patients (23 new/30 continuing treatment) received OMA in the Barlicki Hospital, Poland. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 16 weeks of OMA treatment by spirometry, mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and oral corticosteroids (OCS), number of asthma exacerbations, the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). OMA treatment responses were determined using the global effectiveness of treatment evaluation scale. Fourteen patients ceased OMA treatment following ≥36 months of therapy and entered follow up.

RESULTS

All patients treated with OMA de novo for at least 16 weeks had a decrease in asthma exacerbations and showed a good (15/16, 94 %) or an excellent (1/16, 6 %) response to treatment. We observed a reduction in OCS dose (≥5 mg/day) in 14/16 (88 %) patients. ACQ and AQLQ scores improved by ≥0.5 points in 15/16 (94 %) and 14/16 (88 %) patients, respectively. After OMA cessation, 11/14 (79 %) patients showed worsening of asthma control and severe exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the OMA program show significant benefits, including reduced use of OCS, improved asthma control and quality of life. After OMA discontinuation, frequent severe exacerbations were observed primarily in patients whose asthma was previously uncontrolled by high OCS doses.

Characterizing the severe asthma population in the United States: claims-based analysis of three treatment cohorts in the year prior to treatment escalation

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the disposition of severe patients prior to treatment escalation. To classify patients by treatment step using pharmacy data and describe their economic and healthcare utilization, insurance status, and sociodemographic characteristics in the year prior to escalation to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) steps 4 and 5.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims cohort study of asthma patients (age 12-75 years) newly initiated on "stable therapy" (three consecutive months of therapy) with omalizumab, high intensity corticosteroids (HICS; ≥1000 µg/d inhaled fluticasone equivalent or oral prednisone), or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid (HDICS; ≥500-<1000 µg/d fluticasone equivalent) from 2002 to 2011. Other asthma treatments were compared as a reference.

RESULTS

Of 25,297 patients, 856 initiated omalizumab, 6926 initiated HICS, and 11,445 initiated HDICS. In the year prior to treatment escalation to omalizumab, HICS, and HDICS, respectively, individuals had high annual mean medical expenditures ($14,071, $12,030, and $7570), utilization (27 outpatient and 10 specialty care visits; 19 outpatient and three specialty; 15 outpatient and two specialty), asthma-related prescription drugs (11.74, 7.8, and 5.17) and chronic comorbidities (2.68, 2.67, and 2.19). Prior to omalizumab treatment, patients were more likely to be salaried, full-time employees with commercial PPO/POS insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to escalating treatment to GINA steps 4 and 5, individuals experienced significant annual medical expenditures, healthcare resource utilization and polypharmacy burden, which may reflect poorly controlled asthma and the need to escalate treatment. Medical claims data and utilization-based measures may be helpful in classifying individuals by GINA treatment step.

Frequency of the off-label use of monoclonal antibodies in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The monoclonal antibodies represent novel therapeutic options for many clinical entities. This study aimed to study the frequency of the off-label use to total use of different monoclonal antibodies in clinical practice.

METHODS

This study systematically searched the PubMed and Scopus databases for relevant studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were considered eligible for inclusion in this review. Eight of the included studies referred to the off-label use of anti-neoplastic monoclonal antibodies, three referred to immunosuppressive ones, and four to other types of monoclonal antibodies. The most studied anti-neoplastic monoclonal antibody was rituximab; which was prescribed off-label at a frequency varying between 16-75%, mostly for an unapproved diagnosis. Bevacizumab was prescribed off-label for age-related macular degeneration more often than ranibizumab, the approved monoclonal antibody for this condition. Of the immunosuppressive monoclonal antibodies, infliximab was used off-label in an average of 15.4% (range=2.8-25%) and adalimumab in 10.5% (range=0-15.4% in different years).

CONCLUSION

The frequency of off-label use of different types of monoclonal antibodies varies, but appears to be considerably high for specific monoclonal antibodies or indications. In certain examples, this might reflect implementation into clinical practice of relevant scientific data, albeit not of the strength or quality that suffices for receipt of regulatory approval. In others, it might relate to the sub-optimal effectiveness and considerable toxicity of the conventional therapies. Still, the clinician should bear in mind the potential costs and toxicity that can be associated with off-label use of monoclonal antibodies.