Mepolizumab add-on therapy in a real world cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: response rate, effectiveness, and safety

Introduction: Severe eosinophilic asthma is an incapacitating disease. Mepolizumab, a humanized anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, proved to be effective as an add-on therapy in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, only data from randomized controlled trials are available and real world data are lacking. Methods: A retrospective observational longitudinal study was conducted in a real world cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab. The primary objective was to determine response rate, based on a global evaluation of treatment effectiveness by the treating pulmonologist. Secondary objectives were to assess exacerbation frequency, systemic maintenance glucocorticoid usage, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), lung function, and adverse events. Results: Seventy-eight patients were included. Treatment with mepolizumab was considered beneficial and was therefore continued in 75.6% of patients 12 months from the initiation of mepolizumab. The most common reason for drop-out was insufficient response. Secondary objectives: 12 months from the initiation of mepolizumab there was a decrease of 3.2 (CI 2.5–4.1; p < 0.001) severe asthma exacerbations per year, a decrease of ACQ of 0.80 points (CI 0.49–1.12; p < 0.001), and an increase of 3.7 (CI 0.3–7.2; p = 0.034) percent of predicted FEV1 compared to baseline. At baseline 51.3% of patients were treated with systemic glucocorticoid maintenance therapy, compared to 15.4% (p < 0.001) of patients 12 months from the initiation of mepolizumab. No serious adverse events considered to be related to mepolizumab were reported. Conclusion: This study confirms that mepolizumab add-on therapy is effective and safe in a real world cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma

Development of an integral assessment approach of health status in patients with obstructive airway diseases: the CORONA study

Traditional assessment of patients with obstructive lung diseases (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COPD) relies on physiological tests. The COPD and Asthma Rotterdam Integrated Care Approach (CORONA) study aims to develop a diagnostic pathway with a more comprehensive approach to the assessment of patients with asthma and COPD in secondary care. Methods: An eight-step method was used to develop and implement the pathway for patients with asthma or COPD referred to an outpatient hospital setting. Results: The diagnostic pathway consists of an evidence-based set of measurements prioritized by a Delphi procedure. The pathway incorporates three innovative diagnostics: the metronome-paced hyperventilation test to measure dynamic hyperinflation, an activity monitor to objectively evaluate physical activity in daily life, and the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument as a comprehensive assessment tool to acquire detailed insight into symptoms, functional limitations, and quality of life. Conclusion: An innovative diagnostic pathway was developed and implemented for patients with obstructive lung diseases referred to secondary care. As this pathway aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of health status, it focuses on biomedical aspects and also reviews behavioral aspects that further elucidate the patient’s health status. The added value of the diagnostic pathway needs to be determined from both an organizational perspective and from the individual patient’s viewpoint

ABC-tool reinvented: development of a disease-specific 'Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool' for multiple chronic conditions

BACKGROUND: Numerous instruments have been developed to assess patient reported outcomes; most approaches however focus on a single condition. With the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity, this might no longer be appropriate. Moreover, a more comprehensive approach that facilitates shared decision making and stimulates self-management is most likely more valuable for clinical practice than a questionnaire alone. This study aims to transform the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (ABC)-tool into the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool for COPD, asthma, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). The tool consists of a scale, a visualisation of the outcomes, and treatment advice. METHODS: Requirements for the tool were formulated. Questionnaires were developed based on a literature study of existing questionnaires, clinical guidelines, interviews with patients and healthcare providers, and input from an expert group. Cut-off points and treatment advice were determined to display the results and to provide practical recommendations. RESULTS: The ABCC-scale consists of a generic questionnaire and disease-specific questionnaires, which can be combined into a single individualized questionnaire for each patient. Results are displayed in one balloon chart, and each domain includes practical recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The ABCC-tool is expected to facilitate conversations between a patient and a healthcare provider, and to help formulate treatment plans and care plans with personalised goals. By facilitating an integrated approach, this instrument can be applied in a variety of circumstances and disease combinations

Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (ABC) tool: Study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in primary and secondary care

Abstract Background Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a growing worldwide problem that imposes a great burden on the daily life of patients. Since there is no cure, the goal of treating COPD is to maintain or improve quality of life. We have developed a new tool, the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool, to assess and visualize the integrated health status of patients with COPD, and to provide patients and healthcare providers with a treatment algorithm. This tool may be used during consultations to monitor the burden of COPD and to adjust treatment if necessary. The aim of the current study is to analyse the effectiveness of the ABC tool compared with usual care on health related quality of life among COPD patients over a period of 18 months. Methods/Design A cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in COPD patients in both primary and secondary care throughout the Netherlands. An intervention group, receiving care based on the ABC tool, will be compared with a control group receiving usual care. The primary outcome will be the change in score on a disease-specific-quality-of-life questionnaire, the Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes will be a different questionnaire (the COPD Assessment Test), lung function and number of exacerbations. During the 18 months follow-up, seven measurements will be conducted, including a baseline and final measurement. Patients will receive questionnaires to be completed at home. Additional data, such as number of exacerbations, will be recorded by the patients’ healthcare providers. A total of 360 patients will be recruited by 40 general practitioners and 20 pulmonologists. Additionally, a process evaluation will be performed among patients and healthcare providers. Discussion The new ABC tool complies with the 2014 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines, which describe the necessity to classify patients on both their airway obstruction and a comprehensive symptom assessment. It has been developed to classify patients, but also to provide visual insight into the burden of COPD and to provide treatment advice. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3788

ABC Index: quantifying experienced burden of COPD in a discrete choice experiment and predicting costs

OBJECTIVE: The Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool supports shared decision making between patient and caregiver. It includes a coloured balloon diagram to visualise patients' scores on burden indicators. We aim to determine the importance of each indicator from a patient perspective, in order to calculate a weighted index score and investigate whether that score is predictive of costs.DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Primary care and secondary care in the Netherlands. 282 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and 252 members of the general public participated.METHODS: Respondents received 14 choice questions and indicated which of two health states was more severe. Health states were described in terms of specific symptoms, limitations in physical, daily and social activities, mental problems, fatigue and exacerbations, most of which had three levels of severity. Weights for each item-level combination were derived from a Bayesian mixed logit model. Weights were rescaled to construct an index score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). Regression models were used to find a classification of this index score in mild, moderate and severe that was discriminative in terms of healthcare costs.RESULTS: Fatigue, limitations in moderate physical activities, number of exacerbations, dyspnoea at rest and fear of breathing getting worse contributed most to the burden of disease. Patients assigned less weight to dyspnoea during exercise, listlessness and limitations with regard to strenuous activities. Respondents from the general public mostly agreed. Mild, moderate and severe burden of disease were defined as scores <20, 20-39 and ≥40. This categorisation was most predictive of healthcare utilisation and annual costs: €1368, €2510 and €9885, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The ABC Index is a new index score for the burden of COPD, which is based on patients' preferences. The classification of the index score into mild, moderate and severe is predictive of future healthcare costs.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3788; Post-results

Incidence and predictors of asthma exacerbations in middle-aged and older adults: The rotterdam study

Aim The aim of this study was to investigate occurrence and determinants of asthma exacerbations in an ageing general population. Methods Subjects aged 45 years or above with physician-diagnosed asthma in the Rotterdam Study, a population-based prospective cohort from January 1991 to May 2018, were assessed for asthma exacerbations. Exacerbations were defined as acute episodes of worsening asthma treated with oral corticosteroids. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to investigate risk factors for a future exacerbation. Results Out of 763 participants with asthma (mean age 61.3 years, 69.2% female), 427 (56.0%) experienced at least one exacerbation, in a mean follow-up time of 13.9 years. The mean annual exacerbation rate was 0.22. Most exacerbations occurred during winter months. Risk factors for exacerbations were a history of previous exacerbations (HR 4.25; 95% CI 3.07–5.90, p<0.001)), respiratory complaints (HR 2.18; 95% CI 1.48–3.21, p<0.001), airflow obstruction (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.07–2.15, p=0.019), obesity (HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.01–1.87, p=0.040) and depressive symptoms (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05–2.29, p=0.027). Compared to those not using respiratory medication, we observed higher hazard ratios for those on short-acting β2-agonists (SABA, i.e. rescue medication) only (HR 3.08, 95% CI 1.61–5.90, p=0.001) than those on controller medication (HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.59–3.92, p<0.001). Conclusion Many older adults with asthma suffer from at least one severe exacerbation. Previous exacerbations, use of SABA without concomitant controller medication, respiratory complaints, obesity, airway obstruction and depression are independent risk factors for exacerbations

Additional file 1 of The Fractional exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO)- test as add-on test in the diagnostic work-up of asthma: a study protocol

Supplementary Material

Structure-activity studies on antitumour imidazotetrazionones

The newly developed Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) scale is a 14-item self-administered questionnaire which measures the physical, psychological, emotional and/or social burden as experienced by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The ABC scale is part of the ABC tool that visualises the outcomes of the questionnaire. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and construct validity of the ABC scale. This multi-centre survey study was conducted in the practices of 19 general practitioners and 9 pulmonologists throughout the Netherlands.