| 1. |
- Heaney, Liam G., et al.
(författare)
-
Eosinophilic and Noneosinophilic Asthma : An Expert Consensus Framework to Characterize Phenotypes in a Global Real-Life Severe Asthma Cohort
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Chest. - : Elsevier BV. - 0012-3692. ; 160:3, s. 814-830
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Phenotypic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma are not well characterized in global, real-life severe asthma cohorts. Research Question: What is the prevalence of eosinophilic and noneosinophilic phenotypes in the population with severe asthma, and can these phenotypes be differentiated by clinical and biomarker variables? Study Design and Methods: This was an historical registry study. Adult patients with severe asthma and available blood eosinophil count (BEC) from 11 countries enrolled in the International Severe Asthma Registry (January 1, 2015-September 30, 2019) were categorized according to likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using a predefined gradient eosinophilic algorithm based on highest BEC, long-term oral corticosteroid use, elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide, nasal polyps, and adult-onset asthma. Demographic and clinical characteristics were defined at baseline (ie, 1 year before or closest to date of BEC). Results: One thousand seven hundred sixteen patients with prospective data were included; 83.8% were identified as most likely (grade 3), 8.3% were identified as likely (grade 2), and 6.3% identified as least likely (grade 1) to have an eosinophilic phenotype, and 1.6% of patients showed a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Eosinophilic phenotype patients (ie, grades 2 or 3) showed later asthma onset (29.1 years vs 6.7 years; P < .001) and worse lung function (postbronchodilator % predicted FEV1, 76.1% vs 89.3%; P = .027) than those with a noneosinophilic phenotype. Patients with noneosinophilic phenotypes were more likely to be women (81.5% vs 62.9%; P = .047), to have eczema (20.8% vs 8.5%; P = .003), and to use anti-IgE (32.1% vs 13.4%; P = .004) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (50.0% vs 28.0%; P = .011) add-on therapy. Interpretation: According to this multicomponent, consensus-driven, and evidence-based eosinophil gradient algorithm (using variables readily accessible in real life), the severe asthma eosinophilic phenotype was more prevalent than previously identified and was phenotypically distinct. This pragmatic gradient algorithm uses variables readily accessible in primary and specialist care, addressing inherent issues of phenotype heterogeneity and phenotype instability. Identification of treatable traits across phenotypes should improve therapeutic precision.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lee, Tae Yoon, et al.
(författare)
-
Individualised risk prediction model for exacerbations in patients with severe asthma : protocol for a multicentre real-world risk modelling study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 13:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Severe asthma is associated with a disproportionally high disease burden, including the risk of severe exacerbations. Accurate prediction of the risk of severe exacerbations may enable clinicians to tailor treatment plans to an individual patient. This study aims to develop and validate a novel risk prediction model for severe exacerbations in patients with severe asthma, and to examine the potential clinical utility of this tool.Methods and analysis: The target population is patients aged 18 years or older with severe asthma. Based on the data from the International Severe Asthma Registry (n=8925), a prediction model will be developed using a penalised, zero-inflated count model that predicts the rate or risk of exacerbation in the next 12 months. The risk prediction tool will be externally validated among patients with physician-assessed severe asthma in an international observational cohort, the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (n=1652). Validation will include examining model calibration (ie, the agreement between observed and predicted rates), model discrimination (ie, the extent to which the model can distinguish between high-risk and low-risk individuals) and the clinical utility at a range of risk thresholds.Ethics and dissemination: This study has obtained ethics approval from the Institutional Review Board of National University of Singapore (NUS-IRB-2021-877), the Anonymised Data Ethics and Protocol Transparency Committee (ADEPT1924) and the University of British Columbia (H22-01737). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.
|
|
| 3. |
- Perez-de-Llano, Luis, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in patients with severe asthma
-
Ingår i: Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. - 1081-1206.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma. Objective: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma. Methods: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV1]: <50% to ≥80%). Results: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV1. The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti–IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment. Conclusion: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies. Trial Registration: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220).
|
|
