Biologic use and outcomes among adults with severe asthma treated by US subspecialists.

BACKGROUND: Multiple biologics are now available for severe asthma (SA) treatment and can improve outcomes for patients. However, few available data describe the real-world use and effectiveness of multiple approved biologics, including biologic switching, among subspecialists in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate biologic use and associated exacerbation outcomes in a large cohort of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA receiving biologics, maintenance systemic corticosteroids, or those persistently uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For enrolled patients, sites report asthma exacerbations and medication use starting 12 months before enrollment. For patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2021, biologic use and exacerbation outcomes before and after biologic initiation are described. RESULTS: Among 2793 enrolled patients, 66% (n = 1832) were receiving biologics. The most used biologic (> 1 biologic use per patient allowed) was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), dupilumab (18%), and reslizumab (3%). Overall, 16% of patients had biologic switches, 13% had stops, and 89% had ongoing biologic use. Patients starting and switching biologics experienced a 58% (1.80 vs 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs 0.75 per patient-year) reduction in exacerbations, respectively (both P < .001), with a numerically greater reduction observed among those starting non-anti-immunoglobulin E biologics compared with anti-immunoglobulin E. CONCLUSION: Real-world starting and switching of biologic therapies for SA were associated with meaningful reductions in exacerbations. With increasing biologic options available, individualized approaches to therapy may improve patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045.

Perceptions on Home-Administration of Biologics in the Context of Severe Asthma: An International Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Biologics are an effective therapy for severe asthma. Home administration of biologics by patients is likely to facilitate their accessibility. Yet little is known about patients' and health care providers' (HCPs) perceptions regarding home administration of biologics. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to create more insight into the perceptions and experiences of patients and HCPs regarding home administration of biologics in the context of the treatment of severe asthma. METHODS: A qualitative international study was performed in the Netherlands, United States, Australia, and United Kingdom. In each country, 2 focus groups were held with potential/recent and long-term users of biologics at home. Prior to the focus groups, patients were prompted with themes on online forums. For triangulation purposes, interviews were held with HCPs to discuss salient findings from forums and focus groups. Data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 75 patients participated in the forums, of which 40 participated in the focus groups. Furthermore, 12 HCPs were interviewed. The following overarching themes were identified: living with severe asthma; practical aspects of using biologics; the role of HCPs regarding biologics; social support from family, friends, and others; effectiveness of biologics and other treatments; side effects of biologics. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that, for those using biologics for severe asthma, the benefits of home administration of biologics usually outweigh inconvenience and side effects. Guided practice, accessible support contact, and monitoring including social support should be central in the transition from hospital to home administration of asthma biologics.

Asthma and coronavirus disease 2019-related outcomes in hospitalized patients: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Several chronic conditions have been associated with a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including asthma. However, there are conflicting conclusions regarding risk of severe disease in this population. OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of asthma on COVID-19 outcomes in a cohort of hospitalized patients and whether there is any association between asthma severity and worse outcomes. METHODS: We identified hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with confirmatory polymerase chain reaction testing with (n = 183) and without asthma (n = 1319) using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes between March 1 and December 30, 2020. We determined asthma maintenance medications, pulmonary function tests, highest historical absolute eosinophil count, and immunoglobulin E. Primary outcomes included death, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Analysis was adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, smoking status, and timing of illness in the pandemic. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, we found no difference in our primary outcomes between patients with asthma and patients without asthma. However, in adjusted analyses, patients with asthma were more likely to have mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.44; P = .04), ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.29; P = .02), longer hospital length of stay (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55; P < .003), and higher mortality (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.33; P = .04) compared with the non-asthma cohort. Inhaled corticosteroid use and eosinophilic phenotype were not associated with considerabledifferences. Interestingly, patients with moderate asthma had worse outcomes whereas patients with severe asthma did not. CONCLUSION: Asthma was associated with severe COVID-19 after controlling for other factors.

Neutrophil calprotectin identifies severe pulmonary disease in COVID-19.

Severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are regularly complicated by respiratory failure. Although it has been suggested that elevated levels of blood neutrophils associate with worsening oxygenation in COVID-19, it is unknown whether neutrophils are drivers of the thrombo-inflammatory storm or simple bystanders. To better understand the potential role of neutrophils in COVID-19, we measured levels of the neutrophil activation marker S100A8/A9 (calprotectin) in hospitalized patients and determined its relationship to severity of illness and respiratory status. Patients with COVID-19 (n = 172) had markedly elevated levels of calprotectin in their blood. Calprotectin tracked with other acute phase reactants including C-reactive protein, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, and absolute neutrophil count, but was superior in identifying patients requiring mechanical ventilation. In longitudinal samples, calprotectin rose as oxygenation worsened. When tested on day 1 or 2 of hospitalization (n = 94 patients), calprotectin levels were significantly higher in patients who progressed to severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation (8039 ± 7031 ng/ml, n = 32) as compared to those who remained free of intubation (3365 ± 3146, P < 0.0001). In summary, serum calprotectin levels track closely with current and future COVID-19 severity, implicating neutrophils as potential perpetuators of inflammation and respiratory compromise in COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a triumph of science and collaboration.

Roughly 1 year after the first case of COVID-19 was identified and less than 1 year after the sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccines with demonstrated safety and efficacy in phase III clinical trials are available. The most promising vaccines have targeted the surface glycoprotein (S-protein) of SARS-CoV-2 and achieved an approximate 85%-95% reduction in the risk of symptomatic COVID-19, while retaining excellent safety profiles and modest side effects in the phase III clinical trials. The mRNA, replication-incompetent viral vector, and protein subunit vaccine technologies have all been successfully employed. Some novel SARS-CoV-2 variants evade but do not appear to fully overcome the potent immunity induced by these vaccines. Emerging real-world effectiveness data add evidence for protection from severe COVID-19. This is an impressive first demonstration of the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccine and vector vaccine platforms. The success of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development should be credited to open science, industry partnerships, harmonization of clinical trials, and the altruism of study participants. The manufacturing and distribution of the emergency use-authorized SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are ongoing challenges. What remains now is to ensure broad and equitable global vaccination against COVID-19.

Prothrombotic antiphospholipid antibodies in COVID-19.

Patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) are at high risk for thrombotic arterial and venous occlusions. At the same time, lung histopathology often reveals fibrin-based occlusion in the small vessels of patients who succumb to the disease. Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired and potentially life-threatening thrombophilia in which patients develop pathogenic autoantibodies (aPL) targeting phospholipids and phospholipid-binding proteins. Case series have recently detected aPL in patients with COVID-19. Here, we measured eight types of aPL [anticardiolipin IgG/IgM/IgA, anti-beta-2 glycoprotein I IgG/IgM/IgA, and anti- phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) IgG/IgM] in the sera of 172 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We detected aPS/PT IgG in 24%, anticardiolipin IgM in 23%, and aPS/PT IgM in 18%. Any aPL was present in 52% of patients using the manufacturer's threshold and in 30% using a more stringent cutoff (≥40 units). Higher levels of aPL were associated with neutrophil hyperactivity (including the release of neutrophil extracellular traps/NETs), higher platelet count, more severe respiratory disease, and lower glomerular filtration rate. Similar to patients with longstanding APS, IgG fractions isolated from patients with COVID-19 promoted NET release from control neutrophils. Furthermore, injection of these COVID-19 IgG fractions into mice accelerated venous thrombosis. Taken together, these studies suggest that a significant percentage of patients with COVID-19 become at least transiently positive for aPL and that these aPL are potentially pathogenic.

Neutrophil extracellular traps and thrombosis in COVID-19.

Studies of patients with COVID-19 have demonstrated markedly dysregulated coagulation and a high risk of morbid arterial and venous thrombotic events. Elevated levels of blood neutrophils and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) have recently been described in patients with COVID-19. However, their potential role in COVID-19-associated thrombosis remains incompletely understood. In order to elucidate the potential role of hyperactive neutrophils and NET release in COVID-19-associated thrombosis, we conducted a case-control study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who developed thrombosis, as compared with gender- and age-matched COVID-19 patients without clinical thrombosis. We found that remnants of NETs (cell-free DNA, myeloperoxidase-DNA complexes, and citrullinated histone H3) and neutrophil-derived S100A8/A9 (calprotectin) in patient sera were associated with higher risk of morbid thrombotic events in spite of prophylactic anticoagulation. These observations underscore the need for urgent investigation into the potential relationship between NETs and unrelenting thrombosis in COVID-19, as well as novel approaches for thrombosis prevention.

Prothrombotic autoantibodies in serum from patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 are at high risk for thrombotic arterial and venous occlusions. Lung histopathology often reveals fibrin-based blockages in the small blood vessels of patients who succumb to the disease. Antiphospholipid syndrome is an acquired and potentially life-threatening thrombophilia in which patients develop pathogenic autoantibodies targeting phospholipids and phospholipid-binding proteins (aPL antibodies). Case series have recently detected aPL antibodies in patients with COVID-19. Here, we measured eight types of aPL antibodies in serum samples from 172 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. These aPL antibodies included anticardiolipin IgG, IgM, and IgA; anti-ß2 glycoprotein I IgG, IgM, and IgA; and anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT) IgG and IgM. We detected aPS/PT IgG in 24% of serum samples, anticardiolipin IgM in 23% of samples, and aPS/PT IgM in 18% of samples. Antiphospholipid autoantibodies were present in 52% of serum samples using the manufacturer's threshold and in 30% using a more stringent cutoff (≥40 ELISA-specific units). Higher titers of aPL antibodies were associated with neutrophil hyperactivity, including the release of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), higher platelet counts, more severe respiratory disease, and lower clinical estimated glomerular filtration rate. Similar to IgG from patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, IgG fractions isolated from patients with COVID-19 promoted NET release from neutrophils isolated from healthy individuals. Furthermore, injection of IgG purified from COVID-19 patient serum into mice accelerated venous thrombosis in two mouse models. These findings suggest that half of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 become at least transiently positive for aPL antibodies and that these autoantibodies are potentially pathogenic.