Barriers to Asthma Treatment in the United States: Results From the Global Asthma Physician and Patient Survey

BACKGROUND: The Global Asthma Physician and Patient (GAPP) survey evaluated the perceptions of both physicians and patients on the management of asthma. Here we present the results from the United States (US) subpopulation of the GAPP survey. METHODS: The GAPP Survey was a large, global study (physicians, n = 1733; patients, n = 1726; interviews, n = 3459). In the US, 208 adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with asthma and 224 physicians were recruited. Respondents were questioned using self-administered online interviews with close-ended questionnaires. RESULTS: Physician and patient responses were found to differ in regard to perception of time spent on asthma education, awareness of disease symptoms and their severity, asthma medication side effects, and adherence to treatment and the consequence of nonadherence. Comparison of the US findings with the global GAPP survey results suggest the US physician-patient partnership compared reasonably well with the other countries in the survey. Both patients and physicians cited a need for new asthma medication. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to the global GAPP survey, the US-specific findings indicate that in general there is a lack of asthma control, poor adherence to therapy, and room for improvement in patient-physician communication and partnership in treating asthma

Prospective, Single-Arm, Longitudinal Study of Biomarkers in Real-World Patients with Severe Asthma

n/

Association Between a Type 2 Inflammatory Disease Burden Score and Outcomes Among Patients with Asthma

Funding This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Acknowledgments At the time of development of this manuscript, Fen Ye was an employee of Sanofi and Yufang Lu was an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.Medical writing support was provided by Abby Armitt, MSc, and Gauri Saal, MA Economics, of Prime, Knutsford, UK, and funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Minimal clinically important difference for asthma endpoints: an expert consensus report

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) can be defined as the smallest change or difference in an outcome measure that is perceived as beneficial and would lead to a change in the patient's medical management.The aim of the current expert consensus report is to provide a "state-of-the-art" review of the currently available literature evidence about MCID for end-points to monitor asthma control, in order to facilitate optimal disease management and identify unmet needs in the field to guide future research.A series of MCID cut-offs are currently available in literature and validated among populations of asthmatic patients, with most of the evidence focusing on outcomes as patient reported outcomes, lung function and exercise tolerance. On the contrary, only scant and partial data are available for inflammatory biomarkers. These clearly represent the most interesting target for future development in diagnosis and clinical management of asthma, particularly in view of the several biologic drugs in the pipeline, for which regulatory agencies will soon require personalised proof of efficacy and treatment response predictors

World Allergy Organization-McMaster University Guidelines for Allergic Disease Prevention (GLAD-P): Probiotics

Background: Prevalence of allergic diseases in infants, whose parents and siblings do not have allergy, is approximately 10% and reaches 20–30% in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Intestinal microbiota may modulate immunologic and inflammatory systemic responses and, thus, influence development of sensitization and allergy. Probiotics have been reported to modulate immune responses and their supplementation has been proposed as a preventive intervention. Objective: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) convened a guideline panel to develop evidence-based recommendations about the use of probiotics in the prevention of allergy. Methods: We identified the most relevant clinical questions and performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of probiotics for the prevention of allergy. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. We searched for and reviewed the evidence about health effects, patient values and preferences, and resource use (up to November 2014). We followed the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations. Results: Currently available evidence does not indicate that probiotic supplementation reduces the risk of developing allergy in children. However, considering all critical outcomes in this context, the WAO guideline panel determined that there is a likely net benefit from using probiotics resulting primarily from prevention of eczema. The WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using probiotics in pregnant women at high risk for having an allergic child; b) using probiotics in women who breastfeed infants at high risk of developing allergy; and c) using probiotics in infants at high risk of developing allergy. All recommendations are conditional and supported by very low quality evidence. Conclusions: WAO recommendations about probiotic supplementation for prevention of allergy are intended to support parents, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions whether to use probiotics in pregnancy and during breastfeeding, and whether to give them to infants

World Allergy Organization-McMaster University Guidelines for Allergic Disease Prevention (GLAD-P): Vitamin D

Background: The prevalence of allergic diseases is approximately 10 % in infants whose parents and siblings do not have allergic diseases and 20–30 % in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Vitamin D is involved in the regulation of the immune system and it may play a role in the development, severity and course of asthma and other allergic diseases. Objective: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) convened a guideline panel to develop evidence-based recommendations addressing the use of vitamin D in primary prevention of allergic diseases. Methods: Our WAO guideline panel identified the most relevant clinical questions and performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies (NRS), specifically cohort and case-control studies, of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of allergic diseases. We also reviewed the evidence about values and preferences, and resource requirements (up to January 2015, with an update on January 30, 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. Results: Having reviewed the currently available evidence, the WAO guideline panel found no support for the hypothesis that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of developing allergic diseases in children. The WAO guideline panel suggest not using vitamin D in pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, or healthy term infants as a means of preventing the development of allergic diseases. This recommendation does not apply to those mothers and infants who have other indications for prophylactic or therapeutic use of vitamin D. The panel’s recommendations are conditional and supported by very low certainty evidence. Conclusions: WAO recommendations about vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of allergic diseases support parents, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions whether or not to use vitamin D in preventing allergic diseases in healthy, term infants

COVID-19, asthma, and biological therapies: What we need to know

Managing patients with severe asthma during the coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19 is a challenge. Authorities and physicians are still learning how COVID-19 affects people with underlying diseases, and severe asthma is not an exception. Unless relevant data emerge that change our understanding of the relative safety of medications indicated in patients with asthma during this pandemic, clinicians must follow the recommendations of current evidence-based guidelines for preventing loss of control and exacerbations. Also, with the absence of data that would indicate any potential harm, current advice is to continue the administration of biological therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with asthma for whom such therapies are clearly indicated and have been effective. For patients with severe asthma infected by SARS-CoV- 2, the decision to maintain or postpone biological therapy until the patient recovers should be a case-by-case based decision supported by a multidisciplinary team. A registry of cases of COVID- 19 in patients with severe asthma, including those treated with biologics, will help to address a clinical challenge in which we have more questions than answers

Effectiveness of initiating biologics in severe asthma patients with high steroid exposure

Peer reviewedPostprin

Exploring definitions and predictors of severe asthma clinical remission post-biologic in adults

Peer reviewe