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

MRC chronic Dyspnea Scale: Relationships with cardiopulmonary exercise testing and 6-minute walk test in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients: a prospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Exertional dyspnea is the most prominent and disabling feature in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The Medical Research Chronic (MRC) chronic dyspnea score as well as physiological measurements obtained during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) are shown to provide information on the severity and survival of disease.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We prospectively recruited IPF patients and examined the relationship between the MRC score and either CPET or 6MWT parameters known to reflect physiologic derangements limiting exercise capacity in IPF patients</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-five patients with IPF were included in the study. Significant correlations were found between the MRC score and the distance (r = -.781, p < 0.001), the SPO₂at the initiation and the end (r = -.542, p = 0.005 and r = -.713, p < 0.001 respectively) and the desaturation index (r = .634, p = 0.001) for the 6MWT; the MRC score and <it>V</it>O₂peak/kg (r = -.731, p < 0.001), SPO₂at peak exercise (r = -. 682, p < 0.001), VE/VCO₂slope (r = .731, p < 0.001), VE/VCO₂at AT (r = .630, p = 0.002) and the Borg scale at peak exercise (r = .50, p = 0.01) for the CPET. In multiple logistic regression analysis, the only variable independently related to the MRC is the distance walked at the 6MWT.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this population of IPF patients a good correlation was found between the MRC chronic dyspnoea score and physiological parameters obtained during maximal and submaximal exercise testing known to reflect ventilatory impairment and exercise limitation as well as disease severity and survival. This finding is described for the first time in the literature in this group of patients as far as we know and could explain why a simple chronic dyspnea score provides reliable prognostic information on IPF.</p

Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: An international case-cohort study

We conducted an international study of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) diagnosis among a large group of physicians and compared their diagnostic performance to a panel of IPF experts. A total of 1141 respiratory physicians and 34 IPF experts participated. Participants evaluated 60 cases of interstitial lung disease (ILD) without interdisciplinary consultation. Diagnostic agreement was measured using the weighted kappa coefficient (\u3baw). Prognostic discrimination between IPF and other ILDs was used to validate diagnostic accuracy for first-choice diagnoses of IPF and were compared using the Cindex. A total of 404 physicians completed the study. Agreement for IPF diagnosis was higher among expert physicians (\u3baw=0.65, IQR 0.53-0.72, p20 years of experience (C-index=0.72, IQR 0.0-0.73, p=0.229) and non-university hospital physicians with more than 20 years of experience, attending weekly MDT meetings (C-index=0.72, IQR 0.70-0.72, p=0.052), did not differ significantly (p=0.229 and p=0.052 respectively) from the expert panel (C-index=0.74 IQR 0.72-0.75). Experienced respiratory physicians at university-based institutions diagnose IPF with similar prognostic accuracy to IPF experts. Regular MDT meeting attendance improves the prognostic accuracy of experienced non-university practitioners to levels achieved by IPF experts

Existing and emerging treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Introduction: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive and invariable fatal interstitial lung disease. Current antifibrotic treatment halts disease progression but does not cure the disease itself. In the last decade, a substantial understanding of disease pathobiological mechanisms led to the development of numerous clinical trials testing promising pharmacologic agents. Areas covered: In this review, we summarize and discuss current and emerging pharmacological therapies for IPF and highlight the potential of different promising investigational compounds in phase II-IV trials with positive or pending results. Expert commentary: Existing therapies for IPF slow disease progression and recent advances in understanding IPF complex pathogenesis unfolded multiple new possible therapeutic targets. A relevant number of promising clinical trials targeted specific biologic pathways, are ongoing or upcoming, but we are far away from a definitive cure of IPF soon. An ‘oncologic approach’ via tailoring medicine could be a realistic therapeutic intervention that may improve expectancy and quality of life in IPF. © 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis acute exacerbations: Where are we now?

Considerable controversy is haunting the treatment of IPF &apos;acute exacerbation&apos;, its most devastating complication. The consensus coined term &apos;acute exacerbation&apos; implies that on an unknown etiology disease such as IPF, an unknown etiology superimposed acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) represents the end-life event in a consistent proportion of patients and are treated by high dose steroids despite unproven benefit. Inversely, ALI/ARDS treatment recommendations are based on the provision of excellent supportive care plus an extensive search and appropriate treatment of the etiologic precipitant and all intensive care clinicians in the absence of an obvious etiology, considering that occult infection is the most probable and also the most treatable underlying condition, universally administer extensive spectrum antimicrobials. Viewing the persistent high mortality in IPF &apos;acute exacerbations&apos; treated with steroids we strongly believe that a study comparing the two arms of the steroid and non-steroid approach is greatly awaited by scientists and owed to the patients. © Informa Uk, Ltd

Treating CTDs related fibrotic ILDs by immunosuppressants: &quot;Facts and faults&quot;

Fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are commonly encountered in scleroderma where they significantly influence prognosis. The mainstay of treatment in idiopathic fibrotic ILDs for the past 30 years was based on the combined administration of prednisone and cyclophosphamide (CYC) or prednisone, azathioprine plus N-acetyl cysteine, recently proved ineffective and harmful. Rheumatologists also despite &quot;facts&quot; showing that CYC treatment has no beneficial impact on fibrotic ILDs in scleroderma continue to commit the same, in a manner of speaking, &quot;faults&quot; by &quot;treating their fibrotic ILDs by immunosuppressants.&quot; In this issue of the journal, Panopoulos et al. (Lung, 191, 483-489, 2013) recognizing the minimal effect of CYC on fibrotic ILDs in scleroderma patients and the increased use in clinical practice of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) as an alternative, report that MMF use to replace CYC in this setting is not supported, confirming that restoration of purely fibrotic damage in the lungs remains one of the most challenging fields in medicine. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media

Acute severe asthma: New approaches to assessment and treatment

The precise definition of a severe asthmatic exacerbation is an issue that presents difficulties. The term &apos;status asthmaticus&apos; relates severity to outcome and has been used to define a severe asthmatic exacerbation that does not respond to andor perilously delays the repetitive or continuous administration of short-acting inhaled β2-adrenergic receptor agonists (SABA) in the emergency setting. However, a number of limitations exist concerning the quantification of unresponsiveness. Therefore, the term &apos;acute severe asthma&apos; is widely used, relating severity mostly to a combination of the presenting signs and symptoms and the severity of the cardiorespiratory abnormalities observed, although it is well known that presentation does not foretell outcome.In an acute severe asthma episode, close observation plus aggressive administration of bronchodilators (SABAs plus ipratropium bromide via a nebulizer driven by oxygen) and oral or intravenous corticosteroids are necessary to arrest the progression to severe hypercapnic respiratory failure leading to a decrease in consciousness that requires intensive care unit (ICU) admission and, eventually, ventilatory support. Adjunctive therapies (intravenous magnesium sulfate andor others) should be considered in order to avoid intubation. Management after admission to the hospital ward because of an incomplete response is similar.The decision to intubate is essentially based on clinical judgement. Although cardiac or respiratory arrest represents an absolute indication for intubation, the usual picture is that of a conscious patient struggling to breathe. Factors associated with the increased likelihood of intubation include exhaustion and fatigue despite maximal therapy, deteriorating mental status, refractory hypoxaemia, increasing hypercapnia, haemodynamic instability and impending coma or apnoea. To intubate, sedation is indicated in order to improve comfort, safety and patient-ventilator synchrony, while at the same time decrease oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production. Benzodiazepines can be safely used for sedation of the asthmatic patient, but time to awakening after discontinuation is prolonged and difficult to predict. The most common alternative is propofol, which is attractive in patients with sudden-onset (near-fatal) asthma who may be eligible for extubation within a few hours, because it can be titrated rapidly to a deep sedation level and has rapid reversal after discontinuation; in addition, it possesses bronchodilatory properties. The addition of an opioid (fentanyl or remifentanil) administered by continuous infusion to benzodiazepines or propofol is often desirable in order to provide amnesia, sedation, analgesia and respiratory drive suppression.Acute severe asthma is characterized by severe pulmonary hyperinflation due to marked limitation of the expiratory flow. Therefore, the main objective of the initial ventilator management is 2-fold: to ensure adequate gas exchange and to prevent further hyperinflation and ventilator-associated lung injury. This may require hypoventilation of the patient and higher arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO 2) levels and a more acidic pH. This does not apply to asthmatic patients intubated for cardiac or respiratory arrest. In this setting the post-anoxic brain oedema might demand more careful management of PaCO 2 levels to prevent further elevation of intracranial pressure and subsequent complications. Monitoring lung mechanics is of paramount importance for the safe ventilation of patients with status asthmaticus.The first line of specific pharmacological therapy in ventilated asthmatic patients remains bronchodilation with a SABA, typically salbutamol (albuterol). Administration techniques include nebulizers or metered-dose inhalers with spacers. Systemic corticosteroids are critical components of therapy and should be administered to all ventilated patients, although the dose of systemic corticosteroids in mechanically ventilated asthmatic patients remains controversial. Anticholinergics, inhaled corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists and methylxanthines offer little benefit, and clinical data favouring their use are lacking.In conclusion, expertise, perseverance, judicious decisions and practice of evidence-based medicine are of paramount importance for successful outcomes for patients with acute severe asthma. © 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved