Efficacy and safety of levosalbutamol in patients with mild to moderate asthma compared with racemic salbutamol: results of a crossover placebo-controlled study

Aim. Effectiveness and safety of levosalbutamol metered dose inhaler (MDI) in comparison with placebo and salbutamol. Materials and methods. In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-period crossover study, all asthma patients (n=91) received levosalbutamol (90 mcg), salbutamol (180 mcg), and placebo using standard MDI. Pulmonary function testing – forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) – was performed 45 and 15 minutes before and 5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minutes after dosing. The primary efficacy endpoint was the baseline-corrected area under FEV1 curve from 0 to 6 hours (AUC(0–6h)). Secondary endpoints were the baseline adjusted FEV1 and FVC peak values, as well as the onset of drug action. Results. The FEV1 AUC0–6 hours analysis confirmed similar bronchodilatory levosalbutamol and salbutamol effect (p=0.595), significantly improved compared with placebo (p0.001). The peak values of FEV1 and FVC after levosalbutamol or salbutamol dosing were similar (p=0.643) and significantly higher compared with placebo group (p0.001). The active therapy effect was observed 5 minutes after dosing and throughout the entire observation period up to 6 hours, however, there was some tendency towards a longer duration of action of levosalbutamol compared to salbutamol. Levosalbutamol was well tolerated by patients; after levosalbutamol dosing twiсе fewer adverse reactions were observed compared to salbutamol. Conclusion. Levosalbutamol at a 90-mcg dose showed efficacy similar to that of salbutamol at a dose of 180 mcg, assosiated with a good safety profile

Practical recommendations for choosing an immunobiological preparation for the treatment of severe bronchial asthma of T2-endotype

Biological therapy of bronchial asthma (BA) is a modern method of treating severe forms of the disease, that are uncontrolled by traditional pharmacotherapeutic approaches. Currently, 5 monoclonal antibody (AT) preparations are registered in the world for the treatment of severe bronchial asthma (SBA) of the T2 endotype (T2-SBA) – antibodies, binding to immunoglobulin (Ig) E (anti-IgE – omalizumab), interleukin antagonists (IL)-5 (anti-IL-5 – mepolizumab, resizumab) and its receptor (anti-IL-5Rα – benralizumab), as well as antibodies, that selectively bind to the IL-4 and -13 receptor (anti-IL-4 /13Rα – dupilumab). The article presents data on the effectiveness of these drugs in relation to the key characteristics of SBA, formulates clinical and laboratory criteria, the study of which in real practice can potentially predict the likelihood of a clinical response to a particular type of biological therapy. An algorithm is proposed for choosing a targeted therapy strategy for patients with SBA, clinically associated with allergies, for patients with severe non-allergic eosinophilic BA and for patients with eosinophilic BA of a combined phenotype.Биологическая терапия бронхиальной астмы (БА) представляет собой современный метод лечения тяжелых форм заболевания, неконтролируемых при помощи традиционных фармакотерапевтических подходамов. В настоящее время в мире зарегистрированы 5 препаратов моноклональных антител (АТ) для лечения тяжелой бронхиальной астмы (ТБА) Т2-эндотипа (Т2-ТБА) – АТ, связывающие иммуноглобулин (Ig) Е (анти-IgE – омализумаб), антагонисты интерлейкина (IL)-5 (анти-IL-5 – меполизумаб, реслизумаб) и его рецептора (анти-IL-5Rα – бенрализумаб), а также АТ, избирательно связывающиеся с рецептором IL-4 и -13 (анти-IL-4/13Rα – дупилумаб). В статье приведены данные об эффективности указанных препаратов в отношении ключевых характеристик ТБА, сформулированы клинико-лабораторные критерии, при исследовании которых в реальной практике потенциально может быть предсказана вероятность клинического ответа на тот или иной вид биологической терапии. Предложен алгоритм выбора стратегии таргетной терапии для пациентов с ТБА, клинически ассоциированной с аллергией, для больных тяжелой неаллергической эозинофильной БА и для страдающих эозинофильной БА сочетанного фенотип

Statement on Management of Children with Allergic Diseases During New Coronaviral Infection SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic (COVID-19 Infection)

The COVID-19 infection caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has become the real pandemic. Children account for 1–6% of all diagnosed COVID-19 cases. Generally, children have mild disease in comparison to adults, and their mortality rates are extremely low. Despite the fact that all the main efforts of the medical and political community are now focused on preventing the pandemic spread and organizing medical care for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 course, we still have to remember to implement adequate help for patients with chronic diseases, especially for children with allergic diseases. The pandemic period coincided with natural weather period of dusting of causative plants, that led to annual escalation of both allergic rhinitis and asthma in patient group with specific sensitization to tree pollen. Leading experts of allergology (adapting to modern conditions) have created key guidelines on management of children with allergic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines are based on the data and results from the Union of Pediatricians of Russia, Russian Association of Allergologists and Clinical Immunologists, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), European Respiratory Society (ERS), American Thoracic Society (ATS), Global Strategy for Asthma Management (GINA), Initiative on Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA/MACVIA)

Согласованные рекомендации по ведению детей с аллергическими болезнями в период пандемии нового коронавируса SARS-CoV-2 (инфекции COVID-19)

The COVID-19 infection caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has become the real pandemic. Children account for 1–6% of all diagnosed COVID-19 cases. Generally, children have mild disease in comparison to adults, and their mortality rates are extremely low. Despite the fact that all the main efforts of the medical and political community are now focused on preventing the pandemic spread and organizing medical care for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 course, we still have to remember to implement adequate help for patients with chronic diseases, especially for children with allergic diseases. The pandemic period coincided with natural weather period of dusting of causative plants, that led to annual escalation of both allergic rhinitis and asthma in patient group with specific sensitization to tree pollen. Leading experts of allergology (adapting to modern conditions) have created key guidelines on management of children with allergic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines are based on the data and results from the Union of Pediatricians of Russia, Russian Association of Allergologists and Clinical Immunologists, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), European Respiratory Society (ERS), American Thoracic Society (ATS), Global Strategy for Asthma Management (GINA), Initiative on Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA/MACVIA).Инфекция COVID-19, вызванная новым коронавирусом SARS-CoV-2, стала настоящей пандемией. Среди всех диагностированных случаев COVID-19 на долю детей приходится 1–6%. Дети, как правило, имеют более легкое течение заболевания, чем взрослые, показатели смертности у них крайне низкие. Несмотря на то, что основные усилия медицинской и политической общественности в настоящее время направлены на предотвращение распространения пандемии и организацию медицинской помощи больным со среднетяжелым и тяжелым течением COVID-19, нельзя забывать и об адекватной поддержке пациентов с хроническими заболеваниями, особую когорту среди которых составляют дети с аллергическими болезнями. Период пандемии совпал с естественным погодным периодом пыления причинно-значимых растений, что обусловило ежегодное обострение как аллергического ринита, так и астмы в группе пациентов, имеющих специфическую сенсибилизацию к пыльце деревьев. Адаптируясь к современным условиям, ведущие специалисты в области аллергологии составили ключевые рекомендации по ведению детей с аллергией в период пандемии COVID-19, основываясь на результатах наблюдений Союза педиатров России, Российской ассоциации аллергологов и клинических иммунологов, Европейской академии астмы и клинической аллергологии (EAACI), Европейского респираторного общества (ERS), Американского торакального общества (ATS), Глобальной стратегии по достижению контроля над астмой (GINA), Инициативы по аллергическому риниту и его влиянию на астму (ARIA/MACVIA)

Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study

Introduction Treatment with biologics for severe asthma is informed by international and national guidelines and defined by national regulating bodies, but how these drugs are used in real-life is unknown. Materials and methods The European Respiratory Society (ERS) SHARP Clinical Research Collaboration conducted a three-step survey collecting information on asthma biologics use in Europe. Five geographically distant countries defined the survey questions, focusing on seven end-points: biologics availability and financial issues, prescription and administration modalities, inclusion criteria, continuation criteria, switching biologics, combining biologics and evaluation of corticosteroid toxicity. The survey was then sent to SHARP National Leads of 28 European countries. Finally, selected questions were submitted to a broad group of 263 asthma experts identified by national societies. Results Availability of biologics varied between countries, with 17 out of 28 countries having all five existing biologics. Authorised prescribers (pulmonologists and other specialists) also differed. In-hospital administration was the preferred deliverance modality. While exacerbation rate was used as an inclusion criterion in all countries, forced expiratory volume in 1 s was used in 46%. Blood eosinophils were an inclusion criterion in all countries for interleukin-5 (IL-5)-targeted and IL-4/IL-13-targeted biologics, with varying thresholds. There were no formally established criteria for continuing biologics. Reduction in exacerbations represented the most important benchmark, followed by improvement in asthma control and quality of life. Only 73% (191 out of 263) of surveyed clinicians assessed their patients for corticosteroid-induced toxicity. Conclusion Our study reveals important heterogeneity in the use of asthma biologics across Europe. To what extent this impacts on clinical outcomes relevant to patients and healthcare services needs further investigation

Long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma (TRAVERSE): an open-label extension study

Background: Clinical trials have shown treatment benefits of dupilumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma for up to 1 year. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, as data for extended treatment with dupilumab beyond 1 year are not available. Methods: TRAVERSE was an open-label extension study in 362 hospitals and clinical centres across 27 countries that assessed the safety and efficacy of dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks up to 96 weeks in adults and adolescents (aged 12-84 years) with moderate-to-severe or oral-corticosteroid-dependent severe asthma who had completed a previous dupilumab asthma study (phase 2A EXPEDITION, phase 2B DRI [P2b], phase 3 QUEST, or VENTURE). The primary endpoint was the number and percentage of patients with any treatment-emergent adverse events. Secondary endpoints included annualised exacerbation rate (AER) over the treatment period and change from parent study baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1, the five-item asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5), the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ), type 2 biomarkers (blood eosinophils and serum total IgE), and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). Statistical analyses were descriptive. We report safety in all enrolled patients, and efficacy in patients with non-oral-corticosteroid-dependent asthma and in subgroups, including patients with a type 2 inflammatory phenotype who received 148 weeks of treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02134028. Findings: Between Aug 5, 2014, and Oct 11, 2019, of 2302 patients assessed for eligibility, 2282 adults and adolescents were enrolled (median age 50 years, 62·1% female and 37·9% male). Safety during TRAVERSE was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. The proportion of patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events throughout the study duration was similar to that observed in the parent studies and ranged from 76·3% to 94·7%. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (17·5-25·9%), injection-site erythema (2·2-23·4%), and bronchitis (9·3-19·0%). Serious asthma exacerbations (0·5-3·6%) and pneumonia (0·7-2·7%) were the most frequently reported serious adverse events. There were four treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death. Efficacy during TRAVERSE was also consistent with the results of parent studies. In patients who were non-oral-corticosteroid-dependent, AER remained low (0·277-0·327) across parent study and treatment groups, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 improvements were sustained to the end of treatment at week 96 (mean changes from parent study baseline ranged from 0·22 L [SD 0·44] to 0·33 L [0·44] across parent study and treatment groups), and improvements in ACQ-5 and AQLQ scores were sustained to the last timepoint assessed at week 48. Rapid improvements were observed in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and sustained improvements were seen in all outcome measures for patients given dupilumab who previously received placebo in parent studies; further improvements in AER, asthma control, and health-related quality of life were observed in patients who continued receiving dupilumab. Blood eosinophils and serum total IgE decreased progressively. ADA status had no effect on safety or efficacy. In the subgroup of patients with a type 2 inflammatory phenotype followed-up for 148 weeks, AER decreased progressively, and initial lung function improvements were sustained over 148 weeks. Interpretation: Data show that safety and efficacy of dupilumab in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe asthma are sustained when treatment is extended up to 148 weeks. These findings therefore support the long-term use of dupilumab in this patient population

Long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma (TRAVERSE) : an open-label extension study

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown treatment benefits of dupilumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma for up to 1 year. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, as data for extended treatment with dupilumab beyond 1 year are not available. METHODS: TRAVERSE was an open-label extension study in 362 hospitals and clinical centres across 27 countries that assessed the safety and efficacy of dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks up to 96 weeks in adults and adolescents (aged 12-84 years) with moderate-to-severe or oral-corticosteroid-dependent severe asthma who had completed a previous dupilumab asthma study (phase 2A EXPEDITION, phase 2B DRI [P2b], phase 3 QUEST, or VENTURE). The primary endpoint was the number and percentage of patients with any treatment-emergent adverse events. Secondary endpoints included annualised exacerbation rate (AER) over the treatment period and change from parent study baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1, the five-item asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5), the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ), type 2 biomarkers (blood eosinophils and serum total IgE), and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). Statistical analyses were descriptive. We report safety in all enrolled patients, and efficacy in patients with non-oral-corticosteroid-dependent asthma and in subgroups, including patients with a type 2 inflammatory phenotype who received 148 weeks of treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02134028. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2014, and Oct 11, 2019, of 2302 patients assessed for eligibility, 2282 adults and adolescents were enrolled (median age 50 years, 62·1% female and 37·9% male). Safety during TRAVERSE was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. The proportion of patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events throughout the study duration was similar to that observed in the parent studies and ranged from 76·3% to 94·7%. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (17·5-25·9%), injection-site erythema (2·2-23·4%), and bronchitis (9·3-19·0%). Serious asthma exacerbations (0·5-3·6%) and pneumonia (0·7-2·7%) were the most frequently reported serious adverse events. There were four treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death. Efficacy during TRAVERSE was also consistent with the results of parent studies. In patients who were non-oral-corticosteroid-dependent, AER remained low (0·277-0·327) across parent study and treatment groups, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 improvements were sustained to the end of treatment at week 96 (mean changes from parent study baseline ranged from 0·22 L [SD 0·44] to 0·33 L [0·44] across parent study and treatment groups), and improvements in ACQ-5 and AQLQ scores were sustained to the last timepoint assessed at week 48. Rapid improvements were observed in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and sustained improvements were seen in all outcome measures for patients given dupilumab who previously received placebo in parent studies; further improvements in AER, asthma control, and health-related quality of life were observed in patients who continued receiving dupilumab. Blood eosinophils and serum total IgE decreased progressively. ADA status had no effect on safety or efficacy. In the subgroup of patients with a type 2 inflammatory phenotype followed-up for 148 weeks, AER decreased progressively, and initial lung function improvements were sustained over 148 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Data show that safety and efficacy of dupilumab in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe asthma are sustained when treatment is extended up to 148 weeks. These findings therefore support the long-term use of dupilumab in this patient population

COVID-19 vaccination acceptance, safety and side-effects in European patients with severe asthma.

peer reviewedBACKGROUND: Vaccination is vital for achieving population immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but vaccination hesitancy presents a threat to achieving widespread immunity. Vaccine acceptance in chronic potentially immunosuppressed patients is largely unclear, especially in patients with asthma. The aim of this study was to investigate the vaccination experience in people with severe asthma. METHODS: Questionnaires about vaccination beliefs (including the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale, a measure of vaccination hesitancy-related beliefs), vaccination side-effects, asthma control and overall safety perceptions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination were sent to patients with severe asthma in 12 European countries between May and June 2021. RESULTS: 660 participants returned completed questionnaires (87.4% response rate). Of these, 88% stated that they had been, or intended to be, vaccinated, 9.5% were undecided/hesitant and 3% had refused vaccination. Patients who hesitated or refused vaccination had more negative beliefs towards vaccination. Most patients reported mild (48.2%) or no side-effects (43.8%). Patients reporting severe side-effects (5.7%) had more negative beliefs. Most patients (88.8%) reported no change in asthma symptoms after vaccination, while 2.4% reported an improvement, 5.3% a slight deterioration and 1.2% a considerable deterioration. Almost all vaccinated (98%) patients would recommend vaccination to other severe asthma patients. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of vaccination in patients with severe asthma in Europe was high, with a small minority refusing vaccination. Beliefs predicted vaccination behaviour and side-effects. Vaccination had little impact on asthma control. Our findings in people with severe asthma support the broad message that COVID-19 vaccination is safe and well tolerated

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on severe asthma care in Europe: will care change for good?

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has put pressure on health-care services forcing the reorganisation of traditional care pathways. We investigated how physicians taking care of severe asthma patients in Europe reorganised care, and how these changes affected patient satisfaction, asthma control and future care. Methods: In this European-wide cross-sectional study, patient surveys were sent to patients with a physician-diagnosis of severe asthma, and physician surveys to severe asthma specialists between November 2020 and May 2021. Results: 1101 patients and 268 physicians from 16 European countries contributed to the study. Common physician-reported changes in severe asthma care included use of video/phone consultations (46%), reduced availability of physicians (43%) and change to home-administered biologics (38%). Change to phone/video consultations was reported in 45% of patients, of whom 79% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Of 709 patients on biologics, 24% experienced changes in biologic care, of whom 92% were changed to home-administered biologics and of these 62% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Only 2% reported worsening asthma symptoms associated with changes in biologic care. Many physicians expect continued implementation of video/phone consultations (41%) and home administration of biologics (52%). Conclusions: Change to video/phone consultations and home administration of biologics was common in severe asthma care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and was associated with high satisfaction levels in most but not all cases. Many physicians expect these changes to continue in future severe asthma care, though satisfaction levels may change after the pandemic