Definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma: a systematic review

• 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.

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)

art (ämneskategori)