TY - JOUR
T1 - Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe
T2 - a SHARP ERS study
AU - Frix, Anne Noelle
AU - Heaney, Liam G.
AU - Dahlén, Barbro
AU - Mihaltan, Florin
AU - Sergejeva, Svetlana
AU - Popović-Grle, Sanja
AU - Sedlak, Vratislav
AU - Lehtimäki, Lauri
AU - Bourdin, Arnaud
AU - Korn, Stephanie
AU - Zervas, Eleftherios
AU - Csoma, Zsuzsanna
AU - Lúðvíksdóttir, Dora
AU - Butler, Marcus
AU - Canonica, Giorgio Walter
AU - Grisle, Ineta
AU - Bieksiene, Kristina
AU - Ten Brinke, Anneke
AU - Kuna, Piotr
AU - Loureiro, Claudia Chaves
AU - Nenasheva, Natalia M.
AU - Lazic, Zorica
AU - Škrgat, Sabina
AU - Ramos-Barbon, David
AU - Leuppi, Joerg
AU - Gemicioglu, Bilun
AU - Bossios, Apostolos
AU - Porsbjerg, Celeste M.
AU - Bel, Elisabeth H.
AU - Djukanovic, Ratko
AU - Louis, Renaud
N1 - Funding Information:
The SHARP National Leads survey revealed that corticosteroid-induced toxicity was assessed in 20 countries (mainly by clinical evaluation and cortisol blood levels). This was supported by data extracted from the Experts Broad Survey, which showed evaluation by 70% of experts. Cortisol blood level and clinical evaluation were also the most commonly used assessment modalities.
Funding Information:
Support statement: The SHARP CRC has been supported by financial and other contributions from the following consortium partners: European Respiratory Society, GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development Limited, Chiesi Farmaceutici SPA, Novartis Pharma AG, Sanofi-Genzyme Corporation, and Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.
Publisher Copyright:
© The authors 2022.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1183/23120541.00273-2022
DO - 10.1183/23120541.00273-2022
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85140483184
SN - 2312-0541
VL - 8
JO - Erj Open Research
JF - Erj Open Research
IS - 4
M1 - 00273-2022
ER -