Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Fassio O.;Heffler E.;Solidoro P.;
2020-01-01

Abstract

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.
13
7
100441
100452
Behavior; Belief; Biological drug; Severe asthma
Bikov A.; Oguzulgen I.K.; Baiardini I.; Contoli M.; Emelyanov A.; Fassio O.; Ivancevich J.C.; Kaidashev I.; Kowal K.; Labor M.; Lahousse L.; Mihaicuta S.; Novakova S.; Padilla Galo A.; Simidchiev A.; Tiotiu A.; Ansotegui I.J.; Bernstein J.A.; Boulet L.P.; Canonica G.W.; Dubuske L.; Rosario N.; Santus P.; Braido F.; Ardelean C.; Badellino H.; Blua A.; Castillo A.; Carpagnano Giovanna E.; Chong-Neto Herberto J.; Colodenco F.D.; Md Colombaro D.; Correia-De-Sousa J.; Di Marco F.; Dobashi K.; Garcia R.; Gomez R.M.; Gopko O.; Guidos G.; Hajduk M.; Hermanowicz-Salamon J.; Heffler E.; Karadag B.; Kalyoncu A.F.; Keren M.; Kolilekas L.; Kocwin M.; Krusheva B.; Larenas Linnemann D.; Litovchenko I.; Marcipar A.; Meza L.E.; Nedeva D.; Novakova P.; Plavec D.; Popovic-Grle S.; Puggioni F.; Pur Oziygit L.; Rodrigez N.; Ryan D.; Ruzsics I.; Scichilone N.; Serpa F.; Steiropoulos P.; Solidoro P.; Turkalj M.; Umanets T.; Victorio C.F.; Zubeldia J.M.; Yachnyk V.; Zitt M.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Beliefs and preferences severe asthma.pdf

Accesso aperto

Descrizione: articolo principale
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 428.62 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
428.62 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1758093
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact