Asthma

Adults with asthma who received mindfulness training showed significant improvement in symptoms compared to those who did not receive such training, based on data from 73 individuals.

Although previous research shows the contribution of psychological factors to poor asthma control and exacerbations, the ability of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to improve asthma symptoms in particular has not been well studied, wrote Estelle T. Higgins, BA, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues.

“Though the focus of mindfulness training is not symptom reduction, this is frequently the result in populations with chronic medical illness,” they wrote. The researchers hypothesized that MBSR training would reduce the effect of psychological distress on asthma control and inflammation compared to asthma patients in a waitlist control group.

In a study published in Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health, the researchers randomized 38 adults with asthma to a program of MBSR and 24 to a waitlist. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 65 years, with a mean of 38.1 years, and 43 were female. All patients had an asthma diagnosis for at least 6 months; airway inflammation was based on measures of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 30 ppb, 138 blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/mcL, or percent sputum eosinophils ≥ 2% of total leukocytes. Individuals with ongoing medical conditions other than asthma were excluded.

The MBSR group had seven clinical data collection visits at approximately 1-month intervals. MBSR training sessions occurred within classes offered to the community over a period of 8 weekly sessions and one 6-hour retreat, and included breath-focused attention, body scan, and mindful awareness in seated positions, walking, and yoga. Participants completed questionnaires about mindfulness, distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms. These were assessed at baseline, post intervention, and at study completion. Chronic stress level was determined at baseline only.

The primary outcome was asthma control based on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 6-item version (ACQ6) Minimally Important Difference.

Overall, asthma control improved significantly among those randomized to MBSR compared to waitlisted controls (P = .01) and this difference persisted at 4 months after the intervention.

Nearly one-third (32%) of the MBSR participants met the criteria for clinically significant improvement in asthma symptoms, compared to 12% of those on the wait list.

In addition, MBSR-related improvement in asthma control was significantly associated with a reduced distress (P = .043), and was especially effective for individuals with the highest levels of depressive symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Individuals who received MBSR also showed significantly reduced levels of exhaled nitric oxide compared to waitlist controls (P < .05).

The study findings were limited by the lack of an active control group, the researchers noted. “Though a wait-list control group was employed to control for variation in outcome measures over time, it is possible that effects reported here were driven by factors that are not specific to training in mindfulness, such as social support or expectancy effects,” they wrote. However, the results support the value of mindfulness in reducing psychological stress, FeNO, and impairments related to asthma that were sustained over time, they said. The results also support the potential of MBSR to both augment and reduce the need for pharmacological treatment in asthma, and mindfulness may be an effective way to improve overall disease control by reducing the contribution of psychological factors to asthma morbidity, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Coauthor Richard J. Davidson, MD, is the founder and president, and serves on the board of directors for the nonprofit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations Inc. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with asthma who received mindfulness training showed significant improvement in symptoms compared to those who did not receive such training, based on data from 73 individuals.

Although previous research shows the contribution of psychological factors to poor asthma control and exacerbations, the ability of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to improve asthma symptoms in particular has not been well studied, wrote Estelle T. Higgins, BA, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues.

“Though the focus of mindfulness training is not symptom reduction, this is frequently the result in populations with chronic medical illness,” they wrote. The researchers hypothesized that MBSR training would reduce the effect of psychological distress on asthma control and inflammation compared to asthma patients in a waitlist control group.

In a study published in Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health, the researchers randomized 38 adults with asthma to a program of MBSR and 24 to a waitlist. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 65 years, with a mean of 38.1 years, and 43 were female. All patients had an asthma diagnosis for at least 6 months; airway inflammation was based on measures of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 30 ppb, 138 blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/mcL, or percent sputum eosinophils ≥ 2% of total leukocytes. Individuals with ongoing medical conditions other than asthma were excluded.

The MBSR group had seven clinical data collection visits at approximately 1-month intervals. MBSR training sessions occurred within classes offered to the community over a period of 8 weekly sessions and one 6-hour retreat, and included breath-focused attention, body scan, and mindful awareness in seated positions, walking, and yoga. Participants completed questionnaires about mindfulness, distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms. These were assessed at baseline, post intervention, and at study completion. Chronic stress level was determined at baseline only.

The primary outcome was asthma control based on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 6-item version (ACQ6) Minimally Important Difference.

Overall, asthma control improved significantly among those randomized to MBSR compared to waitlisted controls (P = .01) and this difference persisted at 4 months after the intervention.

Nearly one-third (32%) of the MBSR participants met the criteria for clinically significant improvement in asthma symptoms, compared to 12% of those on the wait list.

In addition, MBSR-related improvement in asthma control was significantly associated with a reduced distress (P = .043), and was especially effective for individuals with the highest levels of depressive symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Individuals who received MBSR also showed significantly reduced levels of exhaled nitric oxide compared to waitlist controls (P < .05).

The study findings were limited by the lack of an active control group, the researchers noted. “Though a wait-list control group was employed to control for variation in outcome measures over time, it is possible that effects reported here were driven by factors that are not specific to training in mindfulness, such as social support or expectancy effects,” they wrote. However, the results support the value of mindfulness in reducing psychological stress, FeNO, and impairments related to asthma that were sustained over time, they said. The results also support the potential of MBSR to both augment and reduce the need for pharmacological treatment in asthma, and mindfulness may be an effective way to improve overall disease control by reducing the contribution of psychological factors to asthma morbidity, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Coauthor Richard J. Davidson, MD, is the founder and president, and serves on the board of directors for the nonprofit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations Inc. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with asthma who received mindfulness training showed significant improvement in symptoms compared to those who did not receive such training, based on data from 73 individuals.

Although previous research shows the contribution of psychological factors to poor asthma control and exacerbations, the ability of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to improve asthma symptoms in particular has not been well studied, wrote Estelle T. Higgins, BA, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues.

“Though the focus of mindfulness training is not symptom reduction, this is frequently the result in populations with chronic medical illness,” they wrote. The researchers hypothesized that MBSR training would reduce the effect of psychological distress on asthma control and inflammation compared to asthma patients in a waitlist control group.

In a study published in Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health, the researchers randomized 38 adults with asthma to a program of MBSR and 24 to a waitlist. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 65 years, with a mean of 38.1 years, and 43 were female. All patients had an asthma diagnosis for at least 6 months; airway inflammation was based on measures of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 30 ppb, 138 blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/mcL, or percent sputum eosinophils ≥ 2% of total leukocytes. Individuals with ongoing medical conditions other than asthma were excluded.

The MBSR group had seven clinical data collection visits at approximately 1-month intervals. MBSR training sessions occurred within classes offered to the community over a period of 8 weekly sessions and one 6-hour retreat, and included breath-focused attention, body scan, and mindful awareness in seated positions, walking, and yoga. Participants completed questionnaires about mindfulness, distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms. These were assessed at baseline, post intervention, and at study completion. Chronic stress level was determined at baseline only.

The primary outcome was asthma control based on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 6-item version (ACQ6) Minimally Important Difference.

Overall, asthma control improved significantly among those randomized to MBSR compared to waitlisted controls (P = .01) and this difference persisted at 4 months after the intervention.

Nearly one-third (32%) of the MBSR participants met the criteria for clinically significant improvement in asthma symptoms, compared to 12% of those on the wait list.

In addition, MBSR-related improvement in asthma control was significantly associated with a reduced distress (P = .043), and was especially effective for individuals with the highest levels of depressive symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Individuals who received MBSR also showed significantly reduced levels of exhaled nitric oxide compared to waitlist controls (P < .05).

The study findings were limited by the lack of an active control group, the researchers noted. “Though a wait-list control group was employed to control for variation in outcome measures over time, it is possible that effects reported here were driven by factors that are not specific to training in mindfulness, such as social support or expectancy effects,” they wrote. However, the results support the value of mindfulness in reducing psychological stress, FeNO, and impairments related to asthma that were sustained over time, they said. The results also support the potential of MBSR to both augment and reduce the need for pharmacological treatment in asthma, and mindfulness may be an effective way to improve overall disease control by reducing the contribution of psychological factors to asthma morbidity, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Coauthor Richard J. Davidson, MD, is the founder and president, and serves on the board of directors for the nonprofit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations Inc. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with severe asthma (SA) experienced significantly fewer exacerbations on biologic therapies, compared with those who did not use biologics, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

The development of biologics to target specific inflammatory pathways “has transformed the management of uncontrolled SA,” but data on the real-world use of biologics in severe asthma patients treated by subspecialists are limited, wrote Reynold A. Panettieri, Jr., MD, of Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers reviewed data from CHRONICLE, an ongoing, prospective, real-world noninterventional study of adults aged 18 years and older with severe asthma in the United States.

The study population included 2,847 patients enrolled in the CHRONICLE study between February 2018 and February 2021; 68.8% were women, 74.6% were White. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 89 years, with a mean age of 54.2 years.

Biologic use was defined as patients who started or had ongoing use of biologics between 12 months before enrollment and the patient’s most recent data collection. Switches were defined as stopping one biologic and starting another within 6 months; stops were defined as discontinuing a biologic without switching to another within 6 months. A total of 66% of the patients were using biologics at the time of study enrollment. The most common biologic was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), and dupilumab (18%).

Overall, 89% of the patients had ongoing biologic use, 16% had biologic switches, and 13% had stops.

Patients who started biologics or switched biologics had significant reductions in asthma exacerbations at 6 months, compared with nonbiologic users of 58% (1.80 vs. 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs. 0.75 per patient-year), respectively (P < .001 for both). Asthma exacerbations declined by 70% among biologics users for whom data were available for 12 months before and 12 months after starting biologics.

Exacerbations decreased at 6 months after biologic initiation across all subgroups of patients, notably patients with pre-biologic FEV₁ < 80% and patients with FEV₁ ≥ 80% (66% and 53%, respectively); never smokers and current/former smokers (63% and 50%, respectively); and patients with COPD and without COPD (58% and 52%, respectively).

The researchers also found a greater reduction in exacerbations among patients who switched from anti-IgE therapy to anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapy, compared with those who switched among anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapies (58% vs. 46%).

Patients who stopped or switched biologics appeared to have more severe or treatment-refractory disease than those with ongoing biologic use, the researchers noted. The most common reason for stopping or switching was worsening symptoms.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus only on adults in the United States with subspecialist-treated SA, which may limit generalizability to children or other populations, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in clinical decisions and insurance coverage and the inability to conduct longitudinal assessments, they said.

The results demonstrate that starting or switching biologics was consistently associated with fewer exacerbations in severe asthma. However, more research is needed to determine why some patients were not receiving biologics because they were not considered clinically eligible by their subspecialist health care providers, the researchers concluded.

The current study and the CHRONICLE study were supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Panettieri disclosed serving on the advisory boards for and receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genentech, Regeneron, and Novartis.

Adults with severe asthma (SA) experienced significantly fewer exacerbations on biologic therapies, compared with those who did not use biologics, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

The development of biologics to target specific inflammatory pathways “has transformed the management of uncontrolled SA,” but data on the real-world use of biologics in severe asthma patients treated by subspecialists are limited, wrote Reynold A. Panettieri, Jr., MD, of Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers reviewed data from CHRONICLE, an ongoing, prospective, real-world noninterventional study of adults aged 18 years and older with severe asthma in the United States.

The study population included 2,847 patients enrolled in the CHRONICLE study between February 2018 and February 2021; 68.8% were women, 74.6% were White. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 89 years, with a mean age of 54.2 years.

Biologic use was defined as patients who started or had ongoing use of biologics between 12 months before enrollment and the patient’s most recent data collection. Switches were defined as stopping one biologic and starting another within 6 months; stops were defined as discontinuing a biologic without switching to another within 6 months. A total of 66% of the patients were using biologics at the time of study enrollment. The most common biologic was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), and dupilumab (18%).

Overall, 89% of the patients had ongoing biologic use, 16% had biologic switches, and 13% had stops.

Patients who started biologics or switched biologics had significant reductions in asthma exacerbations at 6 months, compared with nonbiologic users of 58% (1.80 vs. 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs. 0.75 per patient-year), respectively (P < .001 for both). Asthma exacerbations declined by 70% among biologics users for whom data were available for 12 months before and 12 months after starting biologics.

Exacerbations decreased at 6 months after biologic initiation across all subgroups of patients, notably patients with pre-biologic FEV₁ < 80% and patients with FEV₁ ≥ 80% (66% and 53%, respectively); never smokers and current/former smokers (63% and 50%, respectively); and patients with COPD and without COPD (58% and 52%, respectively).

The researchers also found a greater reduction in exacerbations among patients who switched from anti-IgE therapy to anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapy, compared with those who switched among anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapies (58% vs. 46%).

Patients who stopped or switched biologics appeared to have more severe or treatment-refractory disease than those with ongoing biologic use, the researchers noted. The most common reason for stopping or switching was worsening symptoms.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus only on adults in the United States with subspecialist-treated SA, which may limit generalizability to children or other populations, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in clinical decisions and insurance coverage and the inability to conduct longitudinal assessments, they said.

The results demonstrate that starting or switching biologics was consistently associated with fewer exacerbations in severe asthma. However, more research is needed to determine why some patients were not receiving biologics because they were not considered clinically eligible by their subspecialist health care providers, the researchers concluded.

The current study and the CHRONICLE study were supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Panettieri disclosed serving on the advisory boards for and receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genentech, Regeneron, and Novartis.

Adults with severe asthma (SA) experienced significantly fewer exacerbations on biologic therapies, compared with those who did not use biologics, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

The development of biologics to target specific inflammatory pathways “has transformed the management of uncontrolled SA,” but data on the real-world use of biologics in severe asthma patients treated by subspecialists are limited, wrote Reynold A. Panettieri, Jr., MD, of Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers reviewed data from CHRONICLE, an ongoing, prospective, real-world noninterventional study of adults aged 18 years and older with severe asthma in the United States.

The study population included 2,847 patients enrolled in the CHRONICLE study between February 2018 and February 2021; 68.8% were women, 74.6% were White. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 89 years, with a mean age of 54.2 years.

Biologic use was defined as patients who started or had ongoing use of biologics between 12 months before enrollment and the patient’s most recent data collection. Switches were defined as stopping one biologic and starting another within 6 months; stops were defined as discontinuing a biologic without switching to another within 6 months. A total of 66% of the patients were using biologics at the time of study enrollment. The most common biologic was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), and dupilumab (18%).

Overall, 89% of the patients had ongoing biologic use, 16% had biologic switches, and 13% had stops.

Patients who started biologics or switched biologics had significant reductions in asthma exacerbations at 6 months, compared with nonbiologic users of 58% (1.80 vs. 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs. 0.75 per patient-year), respectively (P < .001 for both). Asthma exacerbations declined by 70% among biologics users for whom data were available for 12 months before and 12 months after starting biologics.

Exacerbations decreased at 6 months after biologic initiation across all subgroups of patients, notably patients with pre-biologic FEV₁ < 80% and patients with FEV₁ ≥ 80% (66% and 53%, respectively); never smokers and current/former smokers (63% and 50%, respectively); and patients with COPD and without COPD (58% and 52%, respectively).

The researchers also found a greater reduction in exacerbations among patients who switched from anti-IgE therapy to anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapy, compared with those who switched among anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapies (58% vs. 46%).

Patients who stopped or switched biologics appeared to have more severe or treatment-refractory disease than those with ongoing biologic use, the researchers noted. The most common reason for stopping or switching was worsening symptoms.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus only on adults in the United States with subspecialist-treated SA, which may limit generalizability to children or other populations, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in clinical decisions and insurance coverage and the inability to conduct longitudinal assessments, they said.

The results demonstrate that starting or switching biologics was consistently associated with fewer exacerbations in severe asthma. However, more research is needed to determine why some patients were not receiving biologics because they were not considered clinically eligible by their subspecialist health care providers, the researchers concluded.

The current study and the CHRONICLE study were supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Panettieri disclosed serving on the advisory boards for and receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genentech, Regeneron, and Novartis.

Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

When asthma patients are having frequent clinical deteriorations, clinicians need to evaluate them for the presence and severity of bronchiectasis, according to the authors of a retrospective study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. While bronchiectasis is known to worsen the clinical and functional outcomes in patients with asthma, data regarding the long-term effects of bronchiectasis on the clinical course of asthma have been limited, stated corresponding author Jung-Kyu Lee, MD, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Seoul (Republic of Korea) Metropolitan Government – Seoul National University.

Moderate to severe acute clinical deterioration risks were increased among the 251 patients (mean age 66.6 years, 77.2% men) with bronchiectasis out of 667 asthma patients included in the study. All studied patients underwent chest computed tomography and pulmonary function tests from 2013 to 2019 at two tertiary hospitals in Seoul. The primary outcome, annual incidence of moderate to severe acute exacerbations requiring additional treatment (systemic steroids, antibiotics, or both), was significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis after a mean follow-up period of 3.96 years. Compared with patients who did not exhibit bronchiectasis, the annual rates of severe exacerbations (0.15 ± 0.43 vs. 0.08 ± 0.27; P = .010), moderate to severe (0.47 ± 0.79 vs. 0.34 ± 0.63; P = .018), and acute exacerbations during the follow-up period (49.8% vs. 39.4%; P = .009) were all significantly higher. There was no difference in the proportion of frequent exacerbators between the two groups, however. Severe acute exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, also, were more frequent in the group with bronchiectasis.
 

Risk factors explored

Significant factors conferring greater risk of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations in multivariable analysis included low body mass index, low baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), high use of inhaled corticosteroids, high medication possession, and high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios. The existence of bronchiectasis remained an independent risk factor for severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations despite adjustment for all other factors. While bronchiectasis score showed no association with annual rate of acute exacerbation, progression of bronchiectasis confirmed on follow-up CT was associated with increased risks of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbation.

Included patients had a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by variable expiratory airflow limitation with pulmonary function tests (that is, positive bronchodilator response, positive bronchial provocation test, or excessive variation in lung function between visits). Past histories of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease, lower absolute and predicted values of both baseline FEV₁ and forced vital capacity were more common among patients with bronchiectasis.

Dividing the study population into a group that had at least one moderate to severe acute exacerbation during the follow-up period and a group that did not, the researchers identified characteristics shared by exacerbators: a greater proportion were women, they had lower forced vital capacity and lung-diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, higher blood FVC and blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and more medication use (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting antimuscarinic agent, leukotriene-receptor antagonist, and methylxanthine), compared with the nonexacerbators. More bronchiectasis, more severe bronchiectasis (higher bronchiectasis score), and more progression of bronchiectasis were common among the exacerbators.

Higher acute exacerbation risks accompanied bronchiectasis, at 1.47-fold for moderate, 1.72-fold for severe, and 1.50-fold for moderate to severe exacerbations. Higher risk for severe and moderate to severe exacerbations was conferred by bronchiectasis progression, also.

The researchers pointed to contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, noting both corticosteroids’ essential role in controlling airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, exacerbations, and lung-function decline in asthma patients and that longer or greater inhaled corticosteroid use is associated with both clinical deterioration in asthma and bronchiectasis, and exacerbation history. For bronchiectasis, however, inhaled corticosteroid use offers no benefit while increasing susceptibility to infection and its risks through partial immunosuppression.

“Considering these contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, further research is needed regarding its risks and benefits in asthma patients with bronchiectasis, including differences in the benefit of inhaled corticosteroid use according to patient phenotype,” Dr. Kim and his colleagues concluded.
 

The role of corticosteroids

“One of the more important points discussed in this observational cohort study is the role of inhaled corticosteroid use in bronchiectasis,” said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, director of pulmonary hypertension services, Baystate Health, and assistant professor of medicine, University of Massachusetts – Baystate, both in Springfield, in an interview with this news organization. She cited a review finding no significant benefit versus placebo in spirometry, exacerbation rate, or sputum volume in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and another suggesting that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid use in individuals with blood eosinophils greater than 3%, compared with those not using inhaled corticosteroids or having lower eosinophil counts in the European Respiratory Journal. She cited also higher percentages (48% versus 23%) of adrenal insufficiency in bronchiectasis patients among those taking inhaled corticosteroids versus those not taking them.

Dr. Farmer added, “According to the 2018 Cochrane review of inhaled corticosteroid treatment for non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, results from most randomized, placebo-controlled trials have been disappointing in terms of effects on most endpoints such as pulmonary function and exacerbation frequency. As such, the European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis advise against prescribing inhaled corticosteroids to patients with bronchiectasis, unless otherwise indicated by either an asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis. Also, inhaled corticosteroid treatment in asthma and COPD is associated with common side effects such as oral candidiasis, dysphonia and, in some cases, systemic corticosteroid effects. The rate of adverse events from inhaled corticosteroid treatment of bronchiectasis, however, is largely unknown.Dr. Lee and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

When asthma patients are having frequent clinical deteriorations, clinicians need to evaluate them for the presence and severity of bronchiectasis, according to the authors of a retrospective study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. While bronchiectasis is known to worsen the clinical and functional outcomes in patients with asthma, data regarding the long-term effects of bronchiectasis on the clinical course of asthma have been limited, stated corresponding author Jung-Kyu Lee, MD, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Seoul (Republic of Korea) Metropolitan Government – Seoul National University.

Moderate to severe acute clinical deterioration risks were increased among the 251 patients (mean age 66.6 years, 77.2% men) with bronchiectasis out of 667 asthma patients included in the study. All studied patients underwent chest computed tomography and pulmonary function tests from 2013 to 2019 at two tertiary hospitals in Seoul. The primary outcome, annual incidence of moderate to severe acute exacerbations requiring additional treatment (systemic steroids, antibiotics, or both), was significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis after a mean follow-up period of 3.96 years. Compared with patients who did not exhibit bronchiectasis, the annual rates of severe exacerbations (0.15 ± 0.43 vs. 0.08 ± 0.27; P = .010), moderate to severe (0.47 ± 0.79 vs. 0.34 ± 0.63; P = .018), and acute exacerbations during the follow-up period (49.8% vs. 39.4%; P = .009) were all significantly higher. There was no difference in the proportion of frequent exacerbators between the two groups, however. Severe acute exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, also, were more frequent in the group with bronchiectasis.
 

Risk factors explored

Significant factors conferring greater risk of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations in multivariable analysis included low body mass index, low baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), high use of inhaled corticosteroids, high medication possession, and high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios. The existence of bronchiectasis remained an independent risk factor for severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations despite adjustment for all other factors. While bronchiectasis score showed no association with annual rate of acute exacerbation, progression of bronchiectasis confirmed on follow-up CT was associated with increased risks of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbation.

Included patients had a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by variable expiratory airflow limitation with pulmonary function tests (that is, positive bronchodilator response, positive bronchial provocation test, or excessive variation in lung function between visits). Past histories of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease, lower absolute and predicted values of both baseline FEV₁ and forced vital capacity were more common among patients with bronchiectasis.

Dividing the study population into a group that had at least one moderate to severe acute exacerbation during the follow-up period and a group that did not, the researchers identified characteristics shared by exacerbators: a greater proportion were women, they had lower forced vital capacity and lung-diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, higher blood FVC and blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and more medication use (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting antimuscarinic agent, leukotriene-receptor antagonist, and methylxanthine), compared with the nonexacerbators. More bronchiectasis, more severe bronchiectasis (higher bronchiectasis score), and more progression of bronchiectasis were common among the exacerbators.

Higher acute exacerbation risks accompanied bronchiectasis, at 1.47-fold for moderate, 1.72-fold for severe, and 1.50-fold for moderate to severe exacerbations. Higher risk for severe and moderate to severe exacerbations was conferred by bronchiectasis progression, also.

The researchers pointed to contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, noting both corticosteroids’ essential role in controlling airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, exacerbations, and lung-function decline in asthma patients and that longer or greater inhaled corticosteroid use is associated with both clinical deterioration in asthma and bronchiectasis, and exacerbation history. For bronchiectasis, however, inhaled corticosteroid use offers no benefit while increasing susceptibility to infection and its risks through partial immunosuppression.

“Considering these contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, further research is needed regarding its risks and benefits in asthma patients with bronchiectasis, including differences in the benefit of inhaled corticosteroid use according to patient phenotype,” Dr. Kim and his colleagues concluded.
 

The role of corticosteroids

“One of the more important points discussed in this observational cohort study is the role of inhaled corticosteroid use in bronchiectasis,” said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, director of pulmonary hypertension services, Baystate Health, and assistant professor of medicine, University of Massachusetts – Baystate, both in Springfield, in an interview with this news organization. She cited a review finding no significant benefit versus placebo in spirometry, exacerbation rate, or sputum volume in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and another suggesting that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid use in individuals with blood eosinophils greater than 3%, compared with those not using inhaled corticosteroids or having lower eosinophil counts in the European Respiratory Journal. She cited also higher percentages (48% versus 23%) of adrenal insufficiency in bronchiectasis patients among those taking inhaled corticosteroids versus those not taking them.

Dr. Farmer added, “According to the 2018 Cochrane review of inhaled corticosteroid treatment for non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, results from most randomized, placebo-controlled trials have been disappointing in terms of effects on most endpoints such as pulmonary function and exacerbation frequency. As such, the European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis advise against prescribing inhaled corticosteroids to patients with bronchiectasis, unless otherwise indicated by either an asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis. Also, inhaled corticosteroid treatment in asthma and COPD is associated with common side effects such as oral candidiasis, dysphonia and, in some cases, systemic corticosteroid effects. The rate of adverse events from inhaled corticosteroid treatment of bronchiectasis, however, is largely unknown.Dr. Lee and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

When asthma patients are having frequent clinical deteriorations, clinicians need to evaluate them for the presence and severity of bronchiectasis, according to the authors of a retrospective study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. While bronchiectasis is known to worsen the clinical and functional outcomes in patients with asthma, data regarding the long-term effects of bronchiectasis on the clinical course of asthma have been limited, stated corresponding author Jung-Kyu Lee, MD, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Seoul (Republic of Korea) Metropolitan Government – Seoul National University.

Moderate to severe acute clinical deterioration risks were increased among the 251 patients (mean age 66.6 years, 77.2% men) with bronchiectasis out of 667 asthma patients included in the study. All studied patients underwent chest computed tomography and pulmonary function tests from 2013 to 2019 at two tertiary hospitals in Seoul. The primary outcome, annual incidence of moderate to severe acute exacerbations requiring additional treatment (systemic steroids, antibiotics, or both), was significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis after a mean follow-up period of 3.96 years. Compared with patients who did not exhibit bronchiectasis, the annual rates of severe exacerbations (0.15 ± 0.43 vs. 0.08 ± 0.27; P = .010), moderate to severe (0.47 ± 0.79 vs. 0.34 ± 0.63; P = .018), and acute exacerbations during the follow-up period (49.8% vs. 39.4%; P = .009) were all significantly higher. There was no difference in the proportion of frequent exacerbators between the two groups, however. Severe acute exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, also, were more frequent in the group with bronchiectasis.
 

Risk factors explored

Significant factors conferring greater risk of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations in multivariable analysis included low body mass index, low baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), high use of inhaled corticosteroids, high medication possession, and high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios. The existence of bronchiectasis remained an independent risk factor for severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations despite adjustment for all other factors. While bronchiectasis score showed no association with annual rate of acute exacerbation, progression of bronchiectasis confirmed on follow-up CT was associated with increased risks of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbation.

Included patients had a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by variable expiratory airflow limitation with pulmonary function tests (that is, positive bronchodilator response, positive bronchial provocation test, or excessive variation in lung function between visits). Past histories of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease, lower absolute and predicted values of both baseline FEV₁ and forced vital capacity were more common among patients with bronchiectasis.

Dividing the study population into a group that had at least one moderate to severe acute exacerbation during the follow-up period and a group that did not, the researchers identified characteristics shared by exacerbators: a greater proportion were women, they had lower forced vital capacity and lung-diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, higher blood FVC and blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and more medication use (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting antimuscarinic agent, leukotriene-receptor antagonist, and methylxanthine), compared with the nonexacerbators. More bronchiectasis, more severe bronchiectasis (higher bronchiectasis score), and more progression of bronchiectasis were common among the exacerbators.

Higher acute exacerbation risks accompanied bronchiectasis, at 1.47-fold for moderate, 1.72-fold for severe, and 1.50-fold for moderate to severe exacerbations. Higher risk for severe and moderate to severe exacerbations was conferred by bronchiectasis progression, also.

The researchers pointed to contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, noting both corticosteroids’ essential role in controlling airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, exacerbations, and lung-function decline in asthma patients and that longer or greater inhaled corticosteroid use is associated with both clinical deterioration in asthma and bronchiectasis, and exacerbation history. For bronchiectasis, however, inhaled corticosteroid use offers no benefit while increasing susceptibility to infection and its risks through partial immunosuppression.

“Considering these contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, further research is needed regarding its risks and benefits in asthma patients with bronchiectasis, including differences in the benefit of inhaled corticosteroid use according to patient phenotype,” Dr. Kim and his colleagues concluded.
 

The role of corticosteroids

“One of the more important points discussed in this observational cohort study is the role of inhaled corticosteroid use in bronchiectasis,” said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, director of pulmonary hypertension services, Baystate Health, and assistant professor of medicine, University of Massachusetts – Baystate, both in Springfield, in an interview with this news organization. She cited a review finding no significant benefit versus placebo in spirometry, exacerbation rate, or sputum volume in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and another suggesting that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid use in individuals with blood eosinophils greater than 3%, compared with those not using inhaled corticosteroids or having lower eosinophil counts in the European Respiratory Journal. She cited also higher percentages (48% versus 23%) of adrenal insufficiency in bronchiectasis patients among those taking inhaled corticosteroids versus those not taking them.

Dr. Farmer added, “According to the 2018 Cochrane review of inhaled corticosteroid treatment for non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, results from most randomized, placebo-controlled trials have been disappointing in terms of effects on most endpoints such as pulmonary function and exacerbation frequency. As such, the European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis advise against prescribing inhaled corticosteroids to patients with bronchiectasis, unless otherwise indicated by either an asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis. Also, inhaled corticosteroid treatment in asthma and COPD is associated with common side effects such as oral candidiasis, dysphonia and, in some cases, systemic corticosteroid effects. The rate of adverse events from inhaled corticosteroid treatment of bronchiectasis, however, is largely unknown.Dr. Lee and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

Children born to mothers who take antibiotics during pregnancy may be at an increased risk of developing pediatric asthma and other diseases involved in the atopic march, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Antibiotic use during pregnancy is significantly associated with the development of asthma in children. Additionally prenatal antibiotic exposure is also associated with disorders present in the atopic march including atopic sensitization, dermatitis/eczema, food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and wheeze,” lead study author Alissa Cait, PhD, of Malaghan Institute of Medical Research in Wellington, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Allergy.

“Antibiotics account for 80% of prescribed medications during pregnancy, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of pregnant women receive at least one course of an antibiotic during this time period,” they add.

The researchers evaluated prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk for childhood wheeze or asthma, as well as for diseases associated with the atopic march, by searching standard medical databases for controlled trials in English, German, French, Dutch, or Arabic involving the use of any antibiotic at any time during pregnancy and for atopic disease incidence in children with asthma or wheeze as primary outcome. They excluded reviews, preclinical data, and descriptive studies.

From the 6,060 citations the search returned, 11 prospective and 16 retrospective studies met the authors’ selection criteria. For each study, they evaluated risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and they rated certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.

The studies, published between 2002 and 2020, were conducted in Europe, North America, Asia, and South America. Exposure to antibiotics during the prenatal period was assessed through unsupervised questionnaires, interviews by medical professionals, or extraction from official medical databases.

The results showed that:

• Antibiotic use during pregnancy was linked with increased relative risk of developing wheeze (relative risk, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.94) or asthma (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.34) during childhood.
• Antibiotic use during pregnancy also increased a child’s risk for eczema or dermatitis (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and allergic rhinitis (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25).
• Food allergy increased in one study (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.95).

Quality of studies

“These results have importance for antibiotic stewardship throughout the prenatal period,” the authors write. However, due to issues including high heterogeneity, publication bias, and lack of population numbers in some studies, the overall quality of the evidence presented in the studies was low. Other limitations include mainly White and European study populations, underpowered studies, and study protocol inconsistencies.

“Though there is evidence that antibiotic treatment during pregnancy is a driver of the atopic march, due to a large heterogeneity between studies more research is needed to draw firm conclusions on this matter,” the authors add. “Future studies should employ and report more direct and objective measurement methods rather than self-reported questionnaires.”

Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, a neonatologist and clinical researcher in perinatal infectious diseases and neonatal antimicrobial resistance and stewardship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that the study was well done.

He noted, though, that “although the study reports an association, it cannot prove causation. The relationship between prenatal antibiotics and childhood allergic disorders is likely multifactorial and quite complex.”

He joins the authors in recommending further related research. “Due to the variation in how exposures and outcomes were defined across the studies, more rigorous research will be needed in this area.”

Despite the study’s limitations, “given that some studies have found associations between prenatal antibiotic exposure and childhood atopic and allergic disorders, including asthma, while other studies have not, this systematic review and meta-analysis asks an important question,” Dr. Flannery, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“Investigators found a strong association between prenatal antibiotic exposure and risk of childhood asthma and other disorders,” he said. “This finding supports efforts to safely reduce antibiotic use during pregnancy.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The authors and Dr. Flannery have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children born to mothers who take antibiotics during pregnancy may be at an increased risk of developing pediatric asthma and other diseases involved in the atopic march, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Antibiotic use during pregnancy is significantly associated with the development of asthma in children. Additionally prenatal antibiotic exposure is also associated with disorders present in the atopic march including atopic sensitization, dermatitis/eczema, food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and wheeze,” lead study author Alissa Cait, PhD, of Malaghan Institute of Medical Research in Wellington, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Allergy.

“Antibiotics account for 80% of prescribed medications during pregnancy, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of pregnant women receive at least one course of an antibiotic during this time period,” they add.

The researchers evaluated prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk for childhood wheeze or asthma, as well as for diseases associated with the atopic march, by searching standard medical databases for controlled trials in English, German, French, Dutch, or Arabic involving the use of any antibiotic at any time during pregnancy and for atopic disease incidence in children with asthma or wheeze as primary outcome. They excluded reviews, preclinical data, and descriptive studies.

From the 6,060 citations the search returned, 11 prospective and 16 retrospective studies met the authors’ selection criteria. For each study, they evaluated risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and they rated certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.

The studies, published between 2002 and 2020, were conducted in Europe, North America, Asia, and South America. Exposure to antibiotics during the prenatal period was assessed through unsupervised questionnaires, interviews by medical professionals, or extraction from official medical databases.

The results showed that:

• Antibiotic use during pregnancy was linked with increased relative risk of developing wheeze (relative risk, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.94) or asthma (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.34) during childhood.
• Antibiotic use during pregnancy also increased a child’s risk for eczema or dermatitis (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and allergic rhinitis (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25).
• Food allergy increased in one study (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.95).

Quality of studies

“These results have importance for antibiotic stewardship throughout the prenatal period,” the authors write. However, due to issues including high heterogeneity, publication bias, and lack of population numbers in some studies, the overall quality of the evidence presented in the studies was low. Other limitations include mainly White and European study populations, underpowered studies, and study protocol inconsistencies.

“Though there is evidence that antibiotic treatment during pregnancy is a driver of the atopic march, due to a large heterogeneity between studies more research is needed to draw firm conclusions on this matter,” the authors add. “Future studies should employ and report more direct and objective measurement methods rather than self-reported questionnaires.”

Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, a neonatologist and clinical researcher in perinatal infectious diseases and neonatal antimicrobial resistance and stewardship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that the study was well done.

He noted, though, that “although the study reports an association, it cannot prove causation. The relationship between prenatal antibiotics and childhood allergic disorders is likely multifactorial and quite complex.”

He joins the authors in recommending further related research. “Due to the variation in how exposures and outcomes were defined across the studies, more rigorous research will be needed in this area.”

Despite the study’s limitations, “given that some studies have found associations between prenatal antibiotic exposure and childhood atopic and allergic disorders, including asthma, while other studies have not, this systematic review and meta-analysis asks an important question,” Dr. Flannery, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“Investigators found a strong association between prenatal antibiotic exposure and risk of childhood asthma and other disorders,” he said. “This finding supports efforts to safely reduce antibiotic use during pregnancy.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The authors and Dr. Flannery have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children born to mothers who take antibiotics during pregnancy may be at an increased risk of developing pediatric asthma and other diseases involved in the atopic march, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Antibiotic use during pregnancy is significantly associated with the development of asthma in children. Additionally prenatal antibiotic exposure is also associated with disorders present in the atopic march including atopic sensitization, dermatitis/eczema, food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and wheeze,” lead study author Alissa Cait, PhD, of Malaghan Institute of Medical Research in Wellington, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Allergy.

“Antibiotics account for 80% of prescribed medications during pregnancy, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of pregnant women receive at least one course of an antibiotic during this time period,” they add.

The researchers evaluated prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk for childhood wheeze or asthma, as well as for diseases associated with the atopic march, by searching standard medical databases for controlled trials in English, German, French, Dutch, or Arabic involving the use of any antibiotic at any time during pregnancy and for atopic disease incidence in children with asthma or wheeze as primary outcome. They excluded reviews, preclinical data, and descriptive studies.

From the 6,060 citations the search returned, 11 prospective and 16 retrospective studies met the authors’ selection criteria. For each study, they evaluated risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and they rated certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.

The studies, published between 2002 and 2020, were conducted in Europe, North America, Asia, and South America. Exposure to antibiotics during the prenatal period was assessed through unsupervised questionnaires, interviews by medical professionals, or extraction from official medical databases.

The results showed that:

• Antibiotic use during pregnancy was linked with increased relative risk of developing wheeze (relative risk, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.94) or asthma (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.34) during childhood.
• Antibiotic use during pregnancy also increased a child’s risk for eczema or dermatitis (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and allergic rhinitis (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25).
• Food allergy increased in one study (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.95).

Quality of studies

“These results have importance for antibiotic stewardship throughout the prenatal period,” the authors write. However, due to issues including high heterogeneity, publication bias, and lack of population numbers in some studies, the overall quality of the evidence presented in the studies was low. Other limitations include mainly White and European study populations, underpowered studies, and study protocol inconsistencies.

“Though there is evidence that antibiotic treatment during pregnancy is a driver of the atopic march, due to a large heterogeneity between studies more research is needed to draw firm conclusions on this matter,” the authors add. “Future studies should employ and report more direct and objective measurement methods rather than self-reported questionnaires.”

Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, a neonatologist and clinical researcher in perinatal infectious diseases and neonatal antimicrobial resistance and stewardship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that the study was well done.

He noted, though, that “although the study reports an association, it cannot prove causation. The relationship between prenatal antibiotics and childhood allergic disorders is likely multifactorial and quite complex.”

He joins the authors in recommending further related research. “Due to the variation in how exposures and outcomes were defined across the studies, more rigorous research will be needed in this area.”

Despite the study’s limitations, “given that some studies have found associations between prenatal antibiotic exposure and childhood atopic and allergic disorders, including asthma, while other studies have not, this systematic review and meta-analysis asks an important question,” Dr. Flannery, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“Investigators found a strong association between prenatal antibiotic exposure and risk of childhood asthma and other disorders,” he said. “This finding supports efforts to safely reduce antibiotic use during pregnancy.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The authors and Dr. Flannery have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

What would you do if you believed you had a serious health issue, but the best way to find out for sure might kill you?

That’s the reality for patients who wish to confirm or rule out a food allergy, says Sindy Tang, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

And it’s the reason Dr. Tang and her colleagues are developing a food allergy test that’s not only safer, but also more reliable than today’s tests. In a paper in the journal Lab on a Chip, Dr. Tang and her colleagues outline the basis for this future test, which isolates a food allergy marker from the blood using a magnetic field.
 

How today’s food allergy tests fall short

The gold standard for food allergy diagnosis is something called the oral food challenge. That’s when the patient eats gradually increasing amounts of a problem food – say, peanuts – every 15 to 30 minutes to see if symptoms occur. This means highly allergic patients may risk anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that causes inflammation so severe that breathing becomes restricted and blood pressure drops. Because of that, a clinical team must be at the ready with treatments like oxygen, epinephrine, or albuterol.

“The test is very accurate, but it’s also potentially unsafe and even fatal in rare cases,” Dr. Tang says. “That’s led to many sham tests advertised online that claim to use hair samples for food tests, but those are inaccurate and potentially dangerous, since they may give someone a false sense of confidence about a food they should avoid.”

Less risky tests are available, such as skin-prick tests – those involve scratching a small amount of the food into a patient’s arm – as well as blood tests that measure allergen-specific antibodies.

“Unfortunately, both of those are not that accurate and have high false-positive rates,” Dr. Tang says. “The best method is the oral food challenge, which many patients are afraid to do, not surprisingly.”
 

The future of food allergy testing: faster, safer, more reliable

In their study, the Stanford researchers focused on a type of white blood cell known as basophils, which release histamine when triggered by allergens. By using magnetic nanoparticles that bind to some blood cells but not basophils, they were able to separate basophils from the blood with a magnetic field in just 10 minutes.

Once isolated, the basophils are exposed to potential allergens. If they react, that’s a sign of an allergy.

Basophils have been isolated in labs before but not nearly this quickly and efficiently, Dr. Tang says.

“For true basophil activation, you need the blood to be fresh, which is challenging when you have to send it to a lab,” Dr. Tang says. “Being able to do this kind of test within a clinic or an in-house lab would be a big step forward.”
 

Next steps

While this represents a breakthrough in basophil activation testing, more research is needed to fully develop the system for clinical use. It must be standardized, automated, and miniaturized, the researchers say.

That said, the results give hope to those with food allergies that tomorrow’s gold-standard test will require only a blood sample without an emergency team standing by.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

What would you do if you believed you had a serious health issue, but the best way to find out for sure might kill you?

That’s the reality for patients who wish to confirm or rule out a food allergy, says Sindy Tang, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

And it’s the reason Dr. Tang and her colleagues are developing a food allergy test that’s not only safer, but also more reliable than today’s tests. In a paper in the journal Lab on a Chip, Dr. Tang and her colleagues outline the basis for this future test, which isolates a food allergy marker from the blood using a magnetic field.
 

How today’s food allergy tests fall short

The gold standard for food allergy diagnosis is something called the oral food challenge. That’s when the patient eats gradually increasing amounts of a problem food – say, peanuts – every 15 to 30 minutes to see if symptoms occur. This means highly allergic patients may risk anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that causes inflammation so severe that breathing becomes restricted and blood pressure drops. Because of that, a clinical team must be at the ready with treatments like oxygen, epinephrine, or albuterol.

“The test is very accurate, but it’s also potentially unsafe and even fatal in rare cases,” Dr. Tang says. “That’s led to many sham tests advertised online that claim to use hair samples for food tests, but those are inaccurate and potentially dangerous, since they may give someone a false sense of confidence about a food they should avoid.”

Less risky tests are available, such as skin-prick tests – those involve scratching a small amount of the food into a patient’s arm – as well as blood tests that measure allergen-specific antibodies.

“Unfortunately, both of those are not that accurate and have high false-positive rates,” Dr. Tang says. “The best method is the oral food challenge, which many patients are afraid to do, not surprisingly.”
 

The future of food allergy testing: faster, safer, more reliable

In their study, the Stanford researchers focused on a type of white blood cell known as basophils, which release histamine when triggered by allergens. By using magnetic nanoparticles that bind to some blood cells but not basophils, they were able to separate basophils from the blood with a magnetic field in just 10 minutes.

Once isolated, the basophils are exposed to potential allergens. If they react, that’s a sign of an allergy.

Basophils have been isolated in labs before but not nearly this quickly and efficiently, Dr. Tang says.

“For true basophil activation, you need the blood to be fresh, which is challenging when you have to send it to a lab,” Dr. Tang says. “Being able to do this kind of test within a clinic or an in-house lab would be a big step forward.”
 

Next steps

While this represents a breakthrough in basophil activation testing, more research is needed to fully develop the system for clinical use. It must be standardized, automated, and miniaturized, the researchers say.

That said, the results give hope to those with food allergies that tomorrow’s gold-standard test will require only a blood sample without an emergency team standing by.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

What would you do if you believed you had a serious health issue, but the best way to find out for sure might kill you?

That’s the reality for patients who wish to confirm or rule out a food allergy, says Sindy Tang, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

And it’s the reason Dr. Tang and her colleagues are developing a food allergy test that’s not only safer, but also more reliable than today’s tests. In a paper in the journal Lab on a Chip, Dr. Tang and her colleagues outline the basis for this future test, which isolates a food allergy marker from the blood using a magnetic field.
 

How today’s food allergy tests fall short

The gold standard for food allergy diagnosis is something called the oral food challenge. That’s when the patient eats gradually increasing amounts of a problem food – say, peanuts – every 15 to 30 minutes to see if symptoms occur. This means highly allergic patients may risk anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that causes inflammation so severe that breathing becomes restricted and blood pressure drops. Because of that, a clinical team must be at the ready with treatments like oxygen, epinephrine, or albuterol.

“The test is very accurate, but it’s also potentially unsafe and even fatal in rare cases,” Dr. Tang says. “That’s led to many sham tests advertised online that claim to use hair samples for food tests, but those are inaccurate and potentially dangerous, since they may give someone a false sense of confidence about a food they should avoid.”

Less risky tests are available, such as skin-prick tests – those involve scratching a small amount of the food into a patient’s arm – as well as blood tests that measure allergen-specific antibodies.

“Unfortunately, both of those are not that accurate and have high false-positive rates,” Dr. Tang says. “The best method is the oral food challenge, which many patients are afraid to do, not surprisingly.”
 

The future of food allergy testing: faster, safer, more reliable

In their study, the Stanford researchers focused on a type of white blood cell known as basophils, which release histamine when triggered by allergens. By using magnetic nanoparticles that bind to some blood cells but not basophils, they were able to separate basophils from the blood with a magnetic field in just 10 minutes.

Once isolated, the basophils are exposed to potential allergens. If they react, that’s a sign of an allergy.

Basophils have been isolated in labs before but not nearly this quickly and efficiently, Dr. Tang says.

“For true basophil activation, you need the blood to be fresh, which is challenging when you have to send it to a lab,” Dr. Tang says. “Being able to do this kind of test within a clinic or an in-house lab would be a big step forward.”
 

Next steps

While this represents a breakthrough in basophil activation testing, more research is needed to fully develop the system for clinical use. It must be standardized, automated, and miniaturized, the researchers say.

That said, the results give hope to those with food allergies that tomorrow’s gold-standard test will require only a blood sample without an emergency team standing by.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Prevention of Asthma Exacerbations Using Dupilumab in Urban Children and Adolescents (PANDA) trial was launched in order to examine the effects of treatment on children with poorly controlled allergic asthma who live in low-income urban environments in the United States, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Black and Hispanic children who live in these environments are at particularly high risk for asthma and are prone to attacks. These children and adolescents often have many allergies and are exposed to both high levels of indoor allergens and traffic-related pollution, which can make their asthma even more difficult to control, according to a June 2 NIAID press release.

PANDA is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of dupilumab adjunctive therapy for the reduction of asthma exacerbations in urban children and adolescents 6-17 years with T2-high exacerbation-prone asthma. Approximately 240 participants will be randomized 2:1 to one of two study arms: 1) guidelines-based asthma treatment plus dupilumab, or 2) guidelines-based asthma treatment plus placebo. The planned study treatment will continue for 1 year with an additional 3 months of follow-up following completion of study treatment, according to the study details.

In an earlier study, NIAID-supported investigators identified numerous networks of genes that are activated together and are associated with asthma attacks in minority children and adolescents living in low-income urban settings

“We need to find out how well approved asthma drugs work for disadvantaged children of color living in urban areas, and whether biological markers can help predict how the drugs affect their asthma,” NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said in the release. “The PANDA trial is an important step toward these goals.”

Participant criteria for the study include children of either sex, ages 6-17 years, who live in prespecified urban areas. Participants must have a diagnosis of asthma and must have had at least two asthma exacerbations in the prior year (defined as a requirement for systemic corticosteroids and/or hospitalization). At the screening visit, participants must have the following requirements for asthma controller medication: For children ages 6-11 years: treatments with at least fluticasone 250 mcg dry powder inhaler (DPI) one puff twice daily or its equivalent; for children ages 12 years and older, treatment with at least fluticasone 250 mcg plus long-acting beta agonist (LABA) DPI one puff twice daily or its equivalent.
 

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05347771Location: The NIAID-funded Childhood Asthma in Urban Settings (CAUSE) Network is conducting the study at seven medical centers located in Aurora, Colo.; Boston; Chicago; Cincinnati; New York, and Washington, D.C.

Sponsor: NIAID, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi are cofunding the phase 2 trial.

Study start date: April 2022

Expected completion Date: March 31, 2025

The Prevention of Asthma Exacerbations Using Dupilumab in Urban Children and Adolescents (PANDA) trial was launched in order to examine the effects of treatment on children with poorly controlled allergic asthma who live in low-income urban environments in the United States, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Black and Hispanic children who live in these environments are at particularly high risk for asthma and are prone to attacks. These children and adolescents often have many allergies and are exposed to both high levels of indoor allergens and traffic-related pollution, which can make their asthma even more difficult to control, according to a June 2 NIAID press release.

PANDA is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of dupilumab adjunctive therapy for the reduction of asthma exacerbations in urban children and adolescents 6-17 years with T2-high exacerbation-prone asthma. Approximately 240 participants will be randomized 2:1 to one of two study arms: 1) guidelines-based asthma treatment plus dupilumab, or 2) guidelines-based asthma treatment plus placebo. The planned study treatment will continue for 1 year with an additional 3 months of follow-up following completion of study treatment, according to the study details.

In an earlier study, NIAID-supported investigators identified numerous networks of genes that are activated together and are associated with asthma attacks in minority children and adolescents living in low-income urban settings

“We need to find out how well approved asthma drugs work for disadvantaged children of color living in urban areas, and whether biological markers can help predict how the drugs affect their asthma,” NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said in the release. “The PANDA trial is an important step toward these goals.”

Participant criteria for the study include children of either sex, ages 6-17 years, who live in prespecified urban areas. Participants must have a diagnosis of asthma and must have had at least two asthma exacerbations in the prior year (defined as a requirement for systemic corticosteroids and/or hospitalization). At the screening visit, participants must have the following requirements for asthma controller medication: For children ages 6-11 years: treatments with at least fluticasone 250 mcg dry powder inhaler (DPI) one puff twice daily or its equivalent; for children ages 12 years and older, treatment with at least fluticasone 250 mcg plus long-acting beta agonist (LABA) DPI one puff twice daily or its equivalent.
 

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05347771Location: The NIAID-funded Childhood Asthma in Urban Settings (CAUSE) Network is conducting the study at seven medical centers located in Aurora, Colo.; Boston; Chicago; Cincinnati; New York, and Washington, D.C.

Sponsor: NIAID, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi are cofunding the phase 2 trial.

Study start date: April 2022

Expected completion Date: March 31, 2025

The Prevention of Asthma Exacerbations Using Dupilumab in Urban Children and Adolescents (PANDA) trial was launched in order to examine the effects of treatment on children with poorly controlled allergic asthma who live in low-income urban environments in the United States, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Black and Hispanic children who live in these environments are at particularly high risk for asthma and are prone to attacks. These children and adolescents often have many allergies and are exposed to both high levels of indoor allergens and traffic-related pollution, which can make their asthma even more difficult to control, according to a June 2 NIAID press release.

PANDA is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of dupilumab adjunctive therapy for the reduction of asthma exacerbations in urban children and adolescents 6-17 years with T2-high exacerbation-prone asthma. Approximately 240 participants will be randomized 2:1 to one of two study arms: 1) guidelines-based asthma treatment plus dupilumab, or 2) guidelines-based asthma treatment plus placebo. The planned study treatment will continue for 1 year with an additional 3 months of follow-up following completion of study treatment, according to the study details.

In an earlier study, NIAID-supported investigators identified numerous networks of genes that are activated together and are associated with asthma attacks in minority children and adolescents living in low-income urban settings

“We need to find out how well approved asthma drugs work for disadvantaged children of color living in urban areas, and whether biological markers can help predict how the drugs affect their asthma,” NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said in the release. “The PANDA trial is an important step toward these goals.”

Participant criteria for the study include children of either sex, ages 6-17 years, who live in prespecified urban areas. Participants must have a diagnosis of asthma and must have had at least two asthma exacerbations in the prior year (defined as a requirement for systemic corticosteroids and/or hospitalization). At the screening visit, participants must have the following requirements for asthma controller medication: For children ages 6-11 years: treatments with at least fluticasone 250 mcg dry powder inhaler (DPI) one puff twice daily or its equivalent; for children ages 12 years and older, treatment with at least fluticasone 250 mcg plus long-acting beta agonist (LABA) DPI one puff twice daily or its equivalent.
 

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05347771Location: The NIAID-funded Childhood Asthma in Urban Settings (CAUSE) Network is conducting the study at seven medical centers located in Aurora, Colo.; Boston; Chicago; Cincinnati; New York, and Washington, D.C.

Sponsor: NIAID, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi are cofunding the phase 2 trial.

Study start date: April 2022

Expected completion Date: March 31, 2025

After years going on and off medications for occasional asthma symptoms, things went downhill for Brian Blome in November 2020. The retired carpenter started feeling short of breath and wheezing during bike rides. At home, he struggled with chores.

“I was having a hard time climbing a flight of stairs, just doing laundry,” said Mr. Blome, who lives in the Chicago suburb of Palatine.

To get things under control, he saw an allergist and started regular medications – two tablets, two nasal sprays, and inhaled corticosteroids each day, plus an albuterol inhaler for flare-ups.

The inhalers have an extra feature: an electronic monitor that attaches to the device and automatically tracks where and when the medication is used. Bluetooth sends this information to an app on the patient’s mobile phone and to a dashboard where the medical team can see, at a glance, when symptoms are popping up and how regularly medications are taken – leading to the devices often being called “smart inhalers.”

At the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology conference in Phoenix, researchers explained how digital monitoring devices can help diagnose and treat hard-to-control asthma, potentially reducing the need for oral steroids or biologic therapies.

Even though electric monitors have been on the market for years, their use has been slow to catch on because of uncertainties around insurance coverage, liability, and how to manage and best use the data. One recent study said these devices cost $100-$500, but that price depends on many things, such as insurance.

About 17% of adult asthma patients have “difficult-to-control” asthma, meaning they limit their activity because of breathing symptoms and use reliever medications multiple times a week.

But research suggests that correcting inhaling technique and sticking to the use of the medications can cut that 17% down to just 3.7%, said Mr. Blome’s allergist, Giselle Mosnaim, MD, of NorthShore University HealthSystem in Glenview, Ill. Dr. Mosnaim spoke about digital monitoring at a conference session on digital technologies for asthma management.

A study of more than 5,000 asthma patients “showed that, if you have critical errors in inhaler technique, this leads to worse asthma outcomes and increased asthma exacerbations,” she said. It also shows that, despite new devices and new technologies, “we still have poor inhaler technique.”

Yet adherence is poorly gauged by doctors and patient self-reporting. “The ideal measure of adherence should be objective, accurate, and unobtrusive to minimize impact on patient behavior and allow reliable data collection in real-world settings,” Dr. Mosnaim said. “So electronic medication monitors are the gold standard.”
 

Improving use

Patients not following instructions or guidelines “is something we saw nonstop with kids,” said Caroline Moassessi, founder of the allergy and asthma blog Gratefulfoodie.com who formerly served on a regional board of the American Lung Association. She’s also the mother of two asthmatic children, now in college, who years ago used electronic medication monitors as part of a research trial.

They were “unimpressed – mostly since I think they thought their asthma was controlled,” she said. “When patients are not in crisis, they don’t manage their asthma well.”

Even in research studies such as the one Rachelle Ramsey, PhD, presented at the conference, it’s not only hard to determine if better adherence leads to improved health, but when.

“For example, does your adherence this week impact your asthma control this week, or does it impact your asthma control next week? Or is it even further out? Do you need to have some level of adherence over the course of a month in order to have better outcomes at the end of that month?” said Dr. Ramsey, a pediatric research psychologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “I think it’s a little complicated.”

That said, results from several small studies do show a connection between remote monitoring and better clinical outcomes. One study enrolled asthma patients in the United Kingdom, and another was done by Dr. Mosnaim with Chicago-area patients.

In the U.K. quality improvement project, nurses asked patients with difficult-to-control asthma if they knew how to use their inhalers and were following treatment guidelines.

Those who said “yes” were invited to swap their steroid/inhalers for a controller fitted with a device that tracks use and measures acoustics to test inhaler technique. After 28 days of monitoring, many people in the study had better clinical outcomes.

And after 3 months of digital monitoring, patients didn’t use their rescue medication quite as often.

Mr. Blome has seen a marked improvement in his asthma since starting regular appointments and getting back on daily medications a year and a half ago. He says that now and then, he has wheezing and shortness of breath, usually while biking or exercising. But those symptoms aren’t as severe or frequent as before.

From a doctor’s perspective, “digital inhaler systems allow me to discern patterns in order to determine what triggers his asthma symptoms and to adjust medications at different times of the year,” Dr. Mosnaim said.

Electronic systems can monitor pollen counts and air quality as well as how often a patient uses a quick reliever medication. Thus, she said, tracking these measures year-round could raise attention to impending asthma attacks and suggest when to increase the dose of controller medications or add other treatments.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

After years going on and off medications for occasional asthma symptoms, things went downhill for Brian Blome in November 2020. The retired carpenter started feeling short of breath and wheezing during bike rides. At home, he struggled with chores.

“I was having a hard time climbing a flight of stairs, just doing laundry,” said Mr. Blome, who lives in the Chicago suburb of Palatine.

To get things under control, he saw an allergist and started regular medications – two tablets, two nasal sprays, and inhaled corticosteroids each day, plus an albuterol inhaler for flare-ups.

The inhalers have an extra feature: an electronic monitor that attaches to the device and automatically tracks where and when the medication is used. Bluetooth sends this information to an app on the patient’s mobile phone and to a dashboard where the medical team can see, at a glance, when symptoms are popping up and how regularly medications are taken – leading to the devices often being called “smart inhalers.”

At the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology conference in Phoenix, researchers explained how digital monitoring devices can help diagnose and treat hard-to-control asthma, potentially reducing the need for oral steroids or biologic therapies.

Even though electric monitors have been on the market for years, their use has been slow to catch on because of uncertainties around insurance coverage, liability, and how to manage and best use the data. One recent study said these devices cost $100-$500, but that price depends on many things, such as insurance.

About 17% of adult asthma patients have “difficult-to-control” asthma, meaning they limit their activity because of breathing symptoms and use reliever medications multiple times a week.

But research suggests that correcting inhaling technique and sticking to the use of the medications can cut that 17% down to just 3.7%, said Mr. Blome’s allergist, Giselle Mosnaim, MD, of NorthShore University HealthSystem in Glenview, Ill. Dr. Mosnaim spoke about digital monitoring at a conference session on digital technologies for asthma management.

A study of more than 5,000 asthma patients “showed that, if you have critical errors in inhaler technique, this leads to worse asthma outcomes and increased asthma exacerbations,” she said. It also shows that, despite new devices and new technologies, “we still have poor inhaler technique.”

Yet adherence is poorly gauged by doctors and patient self-reporting. “The ideal measure of adherence should be objective, accurate, and unobtrusive to minimize impact on patient behavior and allow reliable data collection in real-world settings,” Dr. Mosnaim said. “So electronic medication monitors are the gold standard.”
 

Improving use

Patients not following instructions or guidelines “is something we saw nonstop with kids,” said Caroline Moassessi, founder of the allergy and asthma blog Gratefulfoodie.com who formerly served on a regional board of the American Lung Association. She’s also the mother of two asthmatic children, now in college, who years ago used electronic medication monitors as part of a research trial.

They were “unimpressed – mostly since I think they thought their asthma was controlled,” she said. “When patients are not in crisis, they don’t manage their asthma well.”

Even in research studies such as the one Rachelle Ramsey, PhD, presented at the conference, it’s not only hard to determine if better adherence leads to improved health, but when.

“For example, does your adherence this week impact your asthma control this week, or does it impact your asthma control next week? Or is it even further out? Do you need to have some level of adherence over the course of a month in order to have better outcomes at the end of that month?” said Dr. Ramsey, a pediatric research psychologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “I think it’s a little complicated.”

That said, results from several small studies do show a connection between remote monitoring and better clinical outcomes. One study enrolled asthma patients in the United Kingdom, and another was done by Dr. Mosnaim with Chicago-area patients.

In the U.K. quality improvement project, nurses asked patients with difficult-to-control asthma if they knew how to use their inhalers and were following treatment guidelines.

Those who said “yes” were invited to swap their steroid/inhalers for a controller fitted with a device that tracks use and measures acoustics to test inhaler technique. After 28 days of monitoring, many people in the study had better clinical outcomes.

And after 3 months of digital monitoring, patients didn’t use their rescue medication quite as often.

Mr. Blome has seen a marked improvement in his asthma since starting regular appointments and getting back on daily medications a year and a half ago. He says that now and then, he has wheezing and shortness of breath, usually while biking or exercising. But those symptoms aren’t as severe or frequent as before.

From a doctor’s perspective, “digital inhaler systems allow me to discern patterns in order to determine what triggers his asthma symptoms and to adjust medications at different times of the year,” Dr. Mosnaim said.

Electronic systems can monitor pollen counts and air quality as well as how often a patient uses a quick reliever medication. Thus, she said, tracking these measures year-round could raise attention to impending asthma attacks and suggest when to increase the dose of controller medications or add other treatments.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

After years going on and off medications for occasional asthma symptoms, things went downhill for Brian Blome in November 2020. The retired carpenter started feeling short of breath and wheezing during bike rides. At home, he struggled with chores.

“I was having a hard time climbing a flight of stairs, just doing laundry,” said Mr. Blome, who lives in the Chicago suburb of Palatine.

To get things under control, he saw an allergist and started regular medications – two tablets, two nasal sprays, and inhaled corticosteroids each day, plus an albuterol inhaler for flare-ups.

The inhalers have an extra feature: an electronic monitor that attaches to the device and automatically tracks where and when the medication is used. Bluetooth sends this information to an app on the patient’s mobile phone and to a dashboard where the medical team can see, at a glance, when symptoms are popping up and how regularly medications are taken – leading to the devices often being called “smart inhalers.”

At the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology conference in Phoenix, researchers explained how digital monitoring devices can help diagnose and treat hard-to-control asthma, potentially reducing the need for oral steroids or biologic therapies.

Even though electric monitors have been on the market for years, their use has been slow to catch on because of uncertainties around insurance coverage, liability, and how to manage and best use the data. One recent study said these devices cost $100-$500, but that price depends on many things, such as insurance.

About 17% of adult asthma patients have “difficult-to-control” asthma, meaning they limit their activity because of breathing symptoms and use reliever medications multiple times a week.

But research suggests that correcting inhaling technique and sticking to the use of the medications can cut that 17% down to just 3.7%, said Mr. Blome’s allergist, Giselle Mosnaim, MD, of NorthShore University HealthSystem in Glenview, Ill. Dr. Mosnaim spoke about digital monitoring at a conference session on digital technologies for asthma management.

A study of more than 5,000 asthma patients “showed that, if you have critical errors in inhaler technique, this leads to worse asthma outcomes and increased asthma exacerbations,” she said. It also shows that, despite new devices and new technologies, “we still have poor inhaler technique.”

Yet adherence is poorly gauged by doctors and patient self-reporting. “The ideal measure of adherence should be objective, accurate, and unobtrusive to minimize impact on patient behavior and allow reliable data collection in real-world settings,” Dr. Mosnaim said. “So electronic medication monitors are the gold standard.”
 

Improving use

Patients not following instructions or guidelines “is something we saw nonstop with kids,” said Caroline Moassessi, founder of the allergy and asthma blog Gratefulfoodie.com who formerly served on a regional board of the American Lung Association. She’s also the mother of two asthmatic children, now in college, who years ago used electronic medication monitors as part of a research trial.

They were “unimpressed – mostly since I think they thought their asthma was controlled,” she said. “When patients are not in crisis, they don’t manage their asthma well.”

Even in research studies such as the one Rachelle Ramsey, PhD, presented at the conference, it’s not only hard to determine if better adherence leads to improved health, but when.

“For example, does your adherence this week impact your asthma control this week, or does it impact your asthma control next week? Or is it even further out? Do you need to have some level of adherence over the course of a month in order to have better outcomes at the end of that month?” said Dr. Ramsey, a pediatric research psychologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “I think it’s a little complicated.”

That said, results from several small studies do show a connection between remote monitoring and better clinical outcomes. One study enrolled asthma patients in the United Kingdom, and another was done by Dr. Mosnaim with Chicago-area patients.

In the U.K. quality improvement project, nurses asked patients with difficult-to-control asthma if they knew how to use their inhalers and were following treatment guidelines.

Those who said “yes” were invited to swap their steroid/inhalers for a controller fitted with a device that tracks use and measures acoustics to test inhaler technique. After 28 days of monitoring, many people in the study had better clinical outcomes.

And after 3 months of digital monitoring, patients didn’t use their rescue medication quite as often.

Mr. Blome has seen a marked improvement in his asthma since starting regular appointments and getting back on daily medications a year and a half ago. He says that now and then, he has wheezing and shortness of breath, usually while biking or exercising. But those symptoms aren’t as severe or frequent as before.

From a doctor’s perspective, “digital inhaler systems allow me to discern patterns in order to determine what triggers his asthma symptoms and to adjust medications at different times of the year,” Dr. Mosnaim said.

Electronic systems can monitor pollen counts and air quality as well as how often a patient uses a quick reliever medication. Thus, she said, tracking these measures year-round could raise attention to impending asthma attacks and suggest when to increase the dose of controller medications or add other treatments.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.