Short-Acting Beta-2-Agonist Exposure and Severe Asthma Exacerbations: SABINA Findings From Europe and North America

Background: Expert national/global asthma management recommendations raise the issue whether a safe threshold of short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) use without concomitant inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) exists. Objective: To examine SABA and maintenance therapy associations with severe asthma exacerbations across North America and Europe. Methods: Observational analyses of 10 SABa use IN Asthma (SABINA) datasets involving 1,033,564 patients (≥12 y) from Canada, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Negative binomial models (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI adjusted for prespecified-covariates]) evaluated associations between SABA and exacerbations. Results: Across severities, 40.2% of patients were prescribed/possessed 3 or more SABA canisters/y. Per the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2018 definitions, steps 3 to 5–treated patients prescribed/possessing 3 or more versus 1 or 2 SABAs experienced more severe exacerbations (IRR 1.08 [95% CI 1.04‒1.13], U.S. Medicare; IRR 2.11 [95% CI 1.96‒2.27], Poland). This association was not observed in all step 1 or 2–treated patients (the Netherlands, IRR 1.25 [95% CI 0.91‒1.71]; U.S. commercial, IRR 0.92 [95% CI 0.91‒0.93]; U.S. Medicare, IRR 0.74 [95% CI 0.71‒0.76]). We hypothesize that this inverse association between SABA and severe exacerbations in the U.S. datasets was attributable to the large patient population possessing fewer than 3 SABA and no maintenance therapy and receiving oral corticosteroid bursts without face-to-face health care provider encounters. In U.S. SABA monotherapy–treated patients, 3 or more SABAs were associated with more emergency/outpatient visits and hospitalizations (IRR 1.31 [95% CI 1.29‒1.34]). Most GINA 2 to 5–treated study patients (60.6%) did not have maintenance therapy for up to 50% of the time; however, the association of 3 or more SABAs and severe exacerbations persisted (IRR 1.32 [95% CI 1.18‒1.49]) after excluding these patients and the independent effect was further confirmed when U.K. SABA data were analyzed as a continuous variable in patients with up to 100% annual coverage for ICS-containing medications. Conclusions: Increasing SABA exposure is associated with severe exacerbation risk, independent of maintenance therapy. As addressed by GINA, based on studies across asthma severities where as-needed fast-acting bronchodilators with concomitant ICS decrease severe exacerbations compared with SABA, our findings highlight the importance of avoiding a rescue/reliever paradigm utilizing SABA monotherapy

Short-acting β2-agonist exposure and severe asthma exacerbations: SABINA findings from Europe and North America

Background Expert national/global asthma management recommendations raise the issue whether a safe threshold of short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) use without concomitant inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) exists. Objective To examine SABA and maintenance therapy associations with severe asthma exacerbations across North America and Europe. Methods Observational analyses of 10 SABa use IN Asthma (SABINA) datasets involving 1,033,564 patients (≥12 years) from Canada, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom (UK), and United States (US). Negative binomial models (incidence rate-ratio [95% confidence interval]) adjusted for prespecified-covariates]) evaluated associations between SABA and exacerbations. Results Across severities, 40.2% of patients were prescribed/possessed ≥3 SABA canisters/year. Per GINA-2018 definitions, step 3‒5-treated patients prescribed/possessing ≥3 vs. 1‒2 SABA experienced more severe exacerbations (between 1.08 [1.04‒1.13], US-Medicare; 2.11 [1.96‒2.27], Poland). This association was not observed in all step 1‒2-treated patients (the Netherlands 1.25 [0.91‒1.71]; US-commercial 0.92 [0.91‒0.93]; US-Medicare 0.74 [0.71‒0.76]). We hypothesize that this inverse association between SABA and severe exacerbations in the US datasets was attributable to the large patient population possessing <3 SABA and no maintenance therapy and receiving oral corticosteroid bursts without face-to-face healthcare provider encounters. In US SABA monotherapy-treated patients, ≥3 SABA was associated with more emergency/outpatient visits and hospitalizations (1.31 [1.29‒1.34]). Most GINA 2‒5-treated study patients (60.6%) did not have maintenance therapy for up to 50% of the time; however, the association of ≥3 SABA and severe exacerbations persisted (1.32 [1.18‒1.49]) after excluding these patients and the independent effect was further confirmed when UK SABA data was analyzed as a continuous variable in patients with up to 100% annual coverage for ICS-containing medications. Conclusions Increasing SABA exposure is associated with severe exacerbation risk, independent of maintenance therapy. As addressed by GINA, based on studies across asthma severities where as-needed fast-acting bronchodilators with concomitant ICS decrease severe exacerbations compared with SABA, our findings highlight the importance of avoiding a rescue/reliever paradigm utilizing SABA monotherapy

Short-Acting Beta-2-Agonist Exposure and Severe Asthma Exacerbations : SABINA Findings From Europe and North America

Expert national/global asthma management recommendations raise the issue whether a safe threshold of short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) use without concomitant inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) exists. To examine SABA and maintenance therapy associations with severe asthma exacerbations across North America and Europe. Observational analyses of 10 SABa use IN Asthma (SABINA) datasets involving 1,033,564 patients (≥12 y) from Canada, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Negative binomial models (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI adjusted for prespecified-covariates]) evaluated associations between SABA and exacerbations. Across severities, 40.2% of patients were prescribed/possessed 3 or more SABA canisters/y. Per the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2018 definitions, steps 3 to 5-treated patients prescribed/possessing 3 or more versus 1 or 2 SABAs experienced more severe exacerbations (IRR 1.08 [95% CI 1.04‒1.13], U.S. Medicare; IRR 2.11 [95% CI 1.96‒2.27], Poland). This association was not observed in all step 1 or 2-treated patients (the Netherlands, IRR 1.25 [95% CI 0.91‒1.71]; U.S. commercial, IRR 0.92 [95% CI 0.91‒0.93]; U.S. Medicare, IRR 0.74 [95% CI 0.71‒0.76]). We hypothesize that this inverse association between SABA and severe exacerbations in the U.S. datasets was attributable to the large patient population possessing fewer than 3 SABA and no maintenance therapy and receiving oral corticosteroid bursts without face-to-face health care provider encounters. In U.S. SABA monotherapy-treated patients, 3 or more SABAs were associated with more emergency/outpatient visits and hospitalizations (IRR 1.31 [95% CI 1.29‒1.34]). Most GINA 2 to 5-treated study patients (60.6%) did not have maintenance therapy for up to 50% of the time; however, the association of 3 or more SABAs and severe exacerbations persisted (IRR 1.32 [95% CI 1.18‒1.49]) after excluding these patients and the independent effect was further confirmed when U.K. SABA data were analyzed as a continuous variable in patients with up to 100% annual coverage for ICS-containing medications. Increasing SABA exposure is associated with severe exacerbation risk, independent of maintenance therapy. As addressed by GINA, based on studies across asthma severities where as-needed fast-acting bronchodilators with concomitant ICS decrease severe exacerbations compared with SABA, our findings highlight the importance of avoiding a rescue/reliever paradigm utilizing SABA monotherapy

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health