RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the eligibility for biologic therapies for severe asthma (SA) in a cohort of patients attending the Program for Control of Asthma (ProAR) in Bahia, Brazil. METHODS: Data from SA patients (≥18 years old) attending the ProAR, that were included in a case-control study conducted from 2013 to 2015, were used to reassess patients according to a modified ERS/ATS 2014 SA criteria. Patients were then classified according to the eligibility for SA biological therapy based on current prescription labels. RESULTS: From 544 patients in the cohort, 531 (97.6%) were included and 172 (32.4%) were identified as SA patients according to the ERS/ATS 2014 modified criteria. Of these 172 patients, 69 (40.1%) were ineligible for any of the biologicals approved for asthma (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab), 60 (34.9%) patients were eligible for one of the biological therapies, and 10 (5.8%) patients were eligible for all biological therapies. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of patients with SA were eligible for biologic therapy in our study, but none of them received this form of treatment. Almost half of them were not eligible to any of the approved biologics, however. The variability and overlap in patients' eligibility highlight the importance of evaluating each patient individually for a more personalized treatment approach. While there is a need to increase access for some of those eligible that may really need a biologic treatment, continuous efforts are required to develop alternatives to those who are not eligible.
Assuntos
Antiasmáticos/uso terapêutico , Asma/tratamento farmacológico , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Definição da Elegibilidade/normas , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Índice de Massa Corporal , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Comorbidade , Eosinófilos/citologia , Feminino , Humanos , Mediadores da Inflamação/sangue , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Fatores Sexuais , Fatores SocioeconômicosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Asthma prevalence is 339 million globally. 'Severe asthma' (SA) comprises subjects with uncontrolled asthma despite proper management. OBJECTIVES: To compare asthma from diverse ethnicities and environments. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of two adult cohorts, a Brazilian (ProAR) and a European (U-BIOPRED). U-BIOPRED comprised of 311 non-smoking with Severe Asthma (SAn), 110 smokers or ex-smokers with SA (SAs) and 88 mild to moderate asthmatics (MMA) while ProAR included 544 SA and 452 MMA. Although these projects were independent, there were similarities in objectives and methodology, with ProAR adopting operating procedures of U-BIOPRED. RESULTS: Among SA subjects, age, weight, proportion of former smokers and FEV1 pre-bronchodilator were similar. The proportion of SA with a positive skin prick tests (SPT) to aeroallergens, the scores of sino-nasal symptoms and quality of life were comparable. In addition, blood eosinophil counts (EOS) and the % of subjects with EOSâ¯>â¯300â¯cells/µl were not different. The Europeans with SA however, were more severe with a greater proportion of continuous oral corticosteroids (OCS), worse symptoms and more frequent exacerbations. FEV1/FVC pre- and post-bronchodilator were lower among the Europeans. The MMA cohorts were less comparable in control and treatment, but similar in the proportion of allergic rhinitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and EOS >3%. CONCLUSIONS: ProAR and U-BIOPRED cohorts, with varying severity, ethnicity and environment have similarities, which provide the basis for global external validation of asthma phenotypes. This should stimulate collaboration between asthma consortia with the aim of understanding SA, which will lead to better management.
Assuntos
Asma , Classe Social , Adulto , Asma/diagnóstico , Asma/etnologia , Asma/fisiopatologia , Brasil , Estudos de Coortes , Estudos Transversais , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Volume Expiratório Forçado , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fenótipo , Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de DoençaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Patients with COPD who remain symptomatic on long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy may benefit from step-up therapy to a long-acting bronchodilator combination. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) in patients with moderate COPD who remained symptomatic on tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: In this randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study (NCT01899742), patients (N=494) who were prescribed TIO for ≥3 months at screening (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]: 50%-70% of predicted; modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score ≥1) and completed a 4-week run-in with TIO were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg or TIO 18 µg for 12 weeks. Efficacy assessments included trough FEV1 at Day 85 (primary end point), 0-3 h serial FEV1, rescue medication use, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and COPD Assessment Test (CAT). Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Compared with TIO, UMEC/VI produced greater improvements in trough FEV1 (least squares [LS] mean difference: 88 mL at Day 85 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 45-131]; P<0.001) and FEV1 after 5 min on Day 1 (50 mL [95% CI: 27-72]; P<0.001). Reductions in rescue medication use over 12 weeks were greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO (LS mean change: -0.1 puffs/d [95% CI: -0.2-0.0]; P≤0.05). More patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in TDI score (≥1 unit) with UMEC/VI (63%) versus TIO (49%; odds ratio at Day 84=1.78 [95% CI: 1.21-2.64]; P≤0.01). Improvements in SGRQ and CAT scores were similar between treatments. The incidence of AEs was similar with UMEC/VI (30%) and TIO (31%). CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI step-up therapy provides clinical benefit over TIO monotherapy in patients with moderate COPD who are symptomatic on TIO alone.