Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Center for Clinical Investigation, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022 May;128(5):575-582. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2022.01.043. Epub 2022 Feb 5.
Patterns of medication use and efficacy in aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) have not been well characterized, especially since the advent of respiratory biologics. Aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD) is efficacious for upper and lower respiratory symptoms for patients with AERD, though aspirin-related adverse effects can limit therapy. The optimal coordination of ATAD and respiratory biologics for the treatment of AERD remains unclear.
We aimed to characterize patterns of medication use and treatment experience with biologics and ATAD in AERD.
We surveyed 98 patients with AERD recruited from the Brigham and Women's Hospital AERD registry. Patients completed an online questionnaire describing their medication history and treatment experience.
A total of 52 (53.0%) patients reported a history of use of one or more respiratory biologics (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, or dupilumab), and 84 (85.7%) reported undergoing aspirin desensitization. There were 24 patients (24.4%) who reported concurrent use of a biologic and ATAD. Compared with those taking ATAD alone, patients taking a biologic and ATAD concurrently were less likely to report that aspirin was effective for their AERD symptoms (odds ratio, 0.161 [95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.76]; P =.02). Whereas patients reported varying efficacy with biologics, dupilumab had the highest odds of patients reporting it worked "very well" (odds ratio, 17.58 [95% confidence interval, 5.68-54.35]; P < .001).
Biologics are emerging as a treatment option for AERD and are generally well tolerated. Biologic efficacy in AERD is variable by agent, though most patients taking dupilumab found it to be effective. Patients on a biologic in conjunction with ATAD may represent a more severe subset of AERD for which ATAD alone is insufficient.
在阿司匹林加重性呼吸系统疾病(AERD)中,药物使用模式和疗效尚未得到很好的描述,特别是自从呼吸生物制剂问世以来。脱敏后阿司匹林治疗(ATAD)对 AERD 患者的上、下呼吸道症状均有效,但阿司匹林相关不良反应可能会限制治疗。对于 AERD 的治疗,ATAD 与呼吸生物制剂的最佳协调仍不清楚。
我们旨在描述 AERD 中药物使用模式和生物制剂及 ATAD 的治疗经验。
我们从布莱根妇女医院 AERD 注册中心招募了 98 名 AERD 患者进行调查。患者完成了一份在线问卷,描述了他们的用药史和治疗经验。
共有 52 名(53.0%)患者报告曾使用过一种或多种呼吸生物制剂(奥马珠单抗、美泊利单抗、雷西珠单抗、贝那利珠单抗或度匹鲁单抗),84 名(85.7%)患者报告曾进行过阿司匹林脱敏。有 24 名(24.4%)患者同时使用生物制剂和 ATAD。与单独使用 ATAD 的患者相比,同时使用生物制剂和 ATAD 的患者报告阿司匹林对其 AERD 症状有效的可能性更小(比值比,0.161[95%置信区间,0.03-0.76];P=0.02)。尽管患者报告了生物制剂的不同疗效,但度匹鲁单抗报告“非常有效”的可能性最高(比值比,17.58[95%置信区间,5.68-54.35];P<0.001)。
生物制剂已成为 AERD 的一种治疗选择,且通常具有良好的耐受性。生物制剂在 AERD 中的疗效因药物而异,但大多数使用度匹鲁单抗的患者认为其有效。在 ATAD 基础上加用生物制剂的患者可能代表 AERD 更严重的亚组,ATAD 单独治疗效果不足。