Mansur Adel H, Gonem Sherif, Brown Thomas, Burhan Hassan, Chaudhuri Rekha, Dodd James W, Pantin Thomas, Gore Robin, Jackson David, Menzies-Gow Andrew, Patel Mitesh, Pavord Ian, Pfeffer Paul, Siddiqui Salman, Busby John, Heaney Liam G
Birmingham Regional Severe Asthma Service, Heartlands Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham and University of Birmingham, UK.
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2022 Sep 3. doi: 10.1111/cea.14222.
several biological treatments have become available for management of severe asthma. There is a significant overlap in the indication of these treatments with lack of consensus on the first-line biologic choice and switching practice in event of treatment failure.
to evaluate outcomes of biologic treatments through analysis of the UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR), and survey of the UK severe asthma specialists' opinion.
patients registered in the UKSAR database and treated with biologics for severe asthma in the period between January 2014 and August 2021, were studied to explore biologic treatments practice. This was complemented by survey of opinion of severe asthma specialists.
a total of 2,490 patients from 10 severe asthma centres were included in the study (mean age 51.3 years, 61.1% female, mean BMI 30.9kg/m ). Biologics use included mepolizumab 1,115 (44.8%), benralizumab 925 (37.1%), omalizumab 432 (17.3%), dupilumab 13 (0.5%), and reslizumab 5 (0.2%). Patients on omalizumab were younger and had earlier age of onset asthma than those prescribed mepolizumab or benralizumab. Patients prescribed mepolizumab and benralizumab had similar clinical characteristics. Those on benralizumab were more likely to continue treatment at approximately one year follow up (93.9%), than those on mepolizumab (80%), or omalizumab (69.6%). The first choice biologic differed between centres and changed over the study time period. Experts' opinion also diverged in terms of biologic initiation choice and switching practice.
We observed significant variation and divergence in the prescribing practices of biologics in severe asthma that necessitates further research and standardisation.
几种生物治疗方法已可用于重度哮喘的管理。这些治疗方法的适应症存在显著重叠,在一线生物制剂选择以及治疗失败时的换药实践方面缺乏共识。
通过分析英国重度哮喘注册数据库(UKSAR)以及调查英国重度哮喘专家的意见来评估生物治疗的效果。
对2014年1月至2021年8月期间在UKSAR数据库中注册并接受生物制剂治疗重度哮喘的患者进行研究,以探索生物治疗的实践情况。同时通过对重度哮喘专家的意见调查进行补充。
该研究纳入了来自10个重度哮喘中心的2490名患者(平均年龄51.3岁,61.1%为女性,平均体重指数30.9kg/m²)。生物制剂的使用情况包括:美泊利单抗1115例(44.8%)、贝那利珠单抗925例(37.1%)、奥马珠单抗432例(17.3%)、度普利尤单抗13例(0.5%)、瑞利珠单抗5例(0.2%)。使用奥马珠单抗的患者比使用美泊利单抗或贝那利珠单抗的患者更年轻,哮喘发病年龄更早。使用美泊利单抗和贝那利珠单抗的患者具有相似的临床特征。在大约一年的随访中,使用贝那利珠单抗的患者继续治疗的可能性(93.9%)高于使用美泊利单抗的患者(80%)或奥马珠单抗的患者(69.6%)。各中心的首选生物制剂不同,且在研究时间段内有所变化。专家们在生物制剂起始选择和换药实践方面的意见也存在分歧。
我们观察到重度哮喘生物制剂处方实践存在显著差异和分歧,这需要进一步研究和标准化。