Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice

Metabolic syndrome is associated with similar long-term prognosis in non-obese and obese patients. An analysis of 45 615 patients from the nationwide LIPIDOGRAM 2004-2015 cohort studies

Aims We aimed to evaluate the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and long-term all-cause mortality. Methods The LIPIDOGRAM studies were carried out in the primary care in Poland in 2004, 2006 and 2015. MetS was diagnosed based on the National Cholesterol Education Program, Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP/ATP III) and Joint Interim Statement (JIS) criteria. The cohort was divided into four groups: non-obese patients without MetS, obese patients without MetS, non-obese patients with MetS and obese patients with MetS. Differences in all-cause mortality was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results 45,615 participants were enrolled (mean age 56.3, standard deviation: 11.8 years; 61.7% female). MetS was diagnosed in 14,202 (31%) by NCEP/ATP III criteria, and 17,216 (37.7%) by JIS criteria. Follow-up was available for 44,620 (97.8%, median duration 15.3 years) patients. MetS was associated with increased mortality risk among the obese (hazard ratio, HR: 1.88 [95% CI, 1.79-1.99] and HR: 1.93 [95% CI 1.82-2.04], according to NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria, respectively) and non-obese individuals (HR: 2.11 [95% CI 1.85-2.40] and 1.7 [95% CI, 1.56-1.85] according to NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria respectively). Obese patients without MetS had a higher mortality risk than non-obese patients without MetS (HR: 1.16 [95% CI 1.10-1.23] and HR: 1.22 [95%CI 1.15-1.30], respectively in subgroups with NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria applied). Conclusions MetS is associated with increased all-cause mortality risk in non-obese and obese patients. In patients without MetS obesity remains significantly associated with mortality. The concept of metabolically healthy obesity should be revised