| 1. |
- Khaleva, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma: a systematic review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: ERJ open research. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 2312-0541. ; 9:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised methodologically developed, defined, and evaluated definitions of non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma.MethodsWe searched four bibliographic databases from inception to 15th March 2021 (PROSPERO: CRD42021211249).Two reviewers screened references, extracted data, assessed methodological quality of development, measurement properties of outcome measures and definitions of response based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Modified GRADE approach and narrative synthesis were undertaken.ResultsThirteen studies reported three composite outcome measures, three measures of asthma symptoms, one asthma control and one quality of life. Only four were developed with patient input; none were composite measures. Studies utilised 17 definitions of response: 10/17 (58.8%) were based on Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) or Minimal Important Difference (MID) and 16/17 (94.1%) had high quality evidence. Results were limited by poor methodology for development process and incomplete reporting of psychometric properties. Most measures rated “very low” to “low” for quality of measurement properties and none met all quality standards.ConclusionThis is the first review to synthesize evidence about definitions of response to biologics for severe asthma. While high quality definitions are available, most are MCIDs or MIDs which may be insufficient to justify continuation of biologics in terms of cost-effectiveness. There remains an unmet need for universally accepted, patient-centred, composite definitions to aid clinical decision making and comparability of responses to biologics.
|
|
| 2. |
- Khaleva, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Development of Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma (COMSA)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The European respiratory journal. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 1399-3003 .- 0903-1936. ; 61:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Effectiveness studies with biological therapies for asthma lack standardised outcome measures. The COMSA (Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma) working group sought to develop Core Outcome Measures (COM) sets to facilitate better synthesis of data and appraisal of biologics in paediatric and adult asthma clinical studies.MethodsCOMSA utilised a multi-stakeholder consensus process among patients with severe asthma, adult, and paediatric clinicians, pharmaceutical representatives and health regulators from across Europe. Evidence included a systematic review of development, validity, and reliability of selected outcome measures plus a narrative review and a pan-European survey to better understand patients’ and carers’ views about outcome measures. It was discussed using a modified GRADE Evidence to Decision framework. Anonymous voting was conducted using predefined consensus criteria.ResultsBoth adult and paediatric COM sets include forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) as z scores, annual frequency of severe exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use. Additionally, the paediatric COM set includes the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Asthma Control Test (ACT) or Childhood-ACT while the adult COM includes the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (symptoms and rescue medication use reported separately).ConclusionsThis patient-centred collaboration has produced two COM sets for paediatric and adult severe asthma. It is expected that they will inform the methodology of future clinical trials, enhance comparability of efficacy and effectiveness of biological therapies, and help assess their socioeconomic value. COMSA will inform definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.
|
|
| 3. |
- Khaleva, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Development of Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma (COMSA)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The European respiratory journal. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 1399-3003 .- 0903-1936. ; 61:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Effectiveness studies with biological therapies for asthma lack standardised outcome measures. The COMSA (Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma) working group sought to develop Core Outcome Measures (COM) sets to facilitate better synthesis of data and appraisal of biologics in paediatric and adult asthma clinical studies.MethodsCOMSA utilised a multi-stakeholder consensus process among patients with severe asthma, adult, and paediatric clinicians, pharmaceutical representatives and health regulators from across Europe. Evidence included a systematic review of development, validity, and reliability of selected outcome measures plus a narrative review and a pan-European survey to better understand patients’ and carers’ views about outcome measures. It was discussed using a modified GRADE Evidence to Decision framework. Anonymous voting was conducted using predefined consensus criteria.ResultsBoth adult and paediatric COM sets include forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) as z scores, annual frequency of severe exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use. Additionally, the paediatric COM set includes the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Asthma Control Test (ACT) or Childhood-ACT while the adult COM includes the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (symptoms and rescue medication use reported separately).ConclusionsThis patient-centred collaboration has produced two COM sets for paediatric and adult severe asthma. It is expected that they will inform the methodology of future clinical trials, enhance comparability of efficacy and effectiveness of biological therapies, and help assess their socioeconomic value. COMSA will inform definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.
|
|
| 4. |
- Rattu, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Identifying and appraising outcome measures for severe asthma: a systematic review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The European respiratory journal. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 1399-3003 .- 0903-1936. ; 61:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Valid outcome measures are imperative to evaluate treatment response, yet the suitability of existing endpoints for severe asthma is unclear. This review aimed to identify outcome measures for severe asthma and appraise the quality of their measurement properties.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify “candidate” outcome measures published between 2018–2020 (PROSPERO, CRD42020204437). A modified Delphi exercise was conducted to select “key” outcome measures within healthcare professional, patient, pharmaceutical, and regulatory stakeholder groups. Initial validation studies for “key” measures were rated against modified quality criteria from COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). The evidence was discussed at multi-stakeholder meetings to ratify “priority” outcome measures. Subsequently, four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to identify development and validation studies for these endpoints. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed their methodological quality, and graded the evidence according to COSMIN.Results96 outcome measures were identified as “candidates”, 55 as “key”, and 24 as “priority” for severe asthma; including clinical, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, asthma control, and composite. 32 studies reported measurement properties of 17 “priority” endpoints from the latter three domains. Only SAQ and C-ACT were developed with input from severe asthma patients. The certainty of evidence was “low” to “very low” for most “priority” endpoints across all measurement properties, and none fulfilled all quality standards.ConclusionOnly two outcome measures had robust developmental data for severe asthma. This review informed development of core outcome measures sets for severe asthma.
|
|
| 5. |
- Rattu, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Identifying and appraising outcome measures for severe asthma: a systematic review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The European respiratory journal. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 1399-3003 .- 0903-1936. ; 61:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Valid outcome measures are imperative to evaluate treatment response, yet the suitability of existing endpoints for severe asthma is unclear. This review aimed to identify outcome measures for severe asthma and appraise the quality of their measurement properties.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify “candidate” outcome measures published between 2018–2020 (PROSPERO, CRD42020204437). A modified Delphi exercise was conducted to select “key” outcome measures within healthcare professional, patient, pharmaceutical, and regulatory stakeholder groups. Initial validation studies for “key” measures were rated against modified quality criteria from COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). The evidence was discussed at multi-stakeholder meetings to ratify “priority” outcome measures. Subsequently, four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to identify development and validation studies for these endpoints. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed their methodological quality, and graded the evidence according to COSMIN.Results96 outcome measures were identified as “candidates”, 55 as “key”, and 24 as “priority” for severe asthma; including clinical, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, asthma control, and composite. 32 studies reported measurement properties of 17 “priority” endpoints from the latter three domains. Only SAQ and C-ACT were developed with input from severe asthma patients. The certainty of evidence was “low” to “very low” for most “priority” endpoints across all measurement properties, and none fulfilled all quality standards.ConclusionOnly two outcome measures had robust developmental data for severe asthma. This review informed development of core outcome measures sets for severe asthma.
|
|
| 6. |
- Coleman, C, et al.
(författare)
-
Narrative review to capture patients' perceptions and opinions about non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The European respiratory journal. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 1399-3003 .- 0903-1936. ; 61:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.MethodsFour 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.ResultsAdult 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.ConclusionsDefinitions 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.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
