What bothers severe asthma patients most?: a paired patient-clinician study across seven European countries

Introduction: severe asthma is a complex, multidimensional disease. Optimal treatment, adherence and outcomes require shared decision-making, rooted in mutual understanding between patient and clinician. This study used a novel, patient-centred approach to examine the most bothersome aspects of severe asthma to patients, as seen from both perspectives in asthma registries.Methods: across seven countries, 126 patients with severe asthma completed an open-ended survey regarding most the bothersome aspect(s) of their asthma. Patients’ responses were linked with their treating clinician who also completed a free-text survey about each patient's most bothersome aspect(s). Responses were coded using content analysis, and patient and clinician responses were compared. Finally, asthma registries that are part of the SHARP (Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred) Clinical Research Collaboration were examined to see the extent to which they reflected the most bothersome aspects reported by patients.Results: 88 codes and 10 themes were identified. Clinicians were more focused on direct physical symptoms and were less focused on “holistic” aspects such as the effort required to self-manage the disease. Clinicians accurately identified a most bothersome symptom for 29% of patients. Agreement was particularly low with younger patients and those using oral corticosteroids infrequently. In asthma registries, patient aspects were predominantly represented in questionnaires.Conclusions: results demonstrated different perspectives and priorities between patients and clinicians, with clinicians more focused on physical aspects. These differences must be considered when treating individual patients, and within multidisciplinary treatment teams. The use of questionnaires that include multifaceted aspects of disease may result in improved asthma research

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

International audienceIntroduction 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 ERS SHARP clinical research collaboration conducted a 3-step survey collecting information on asthma biologics use in Europe. Five geographically distant countries defined the survey questions, focusing on 7 endpoints: 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 17/28 countries having all 5 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, FEV 1 was used in 46%. Blood eosinophils were an inclusion criterion in all countries for IL5- and IL4/IL13- 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% (191/263) 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

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