The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on severe asthma care in Europe: will care change for good?

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put pressure on healthcare services, forcing the reorganisation of traditional care pathways. We investigated how physicians taking care of severe asthma patients in Europe reorganised care, and how these changes affected patient satisfaction, asthma control and future care. Methods: In this European-wide cross-sectional study, patient surveys were sent to patients with a physician-diagnosis of severe asthma, and physician surveys to severe asthma specialists between November 2020 and May 2021. Results: 1101 patients and 268 physicians from 16 European countries contributed to the study. Common physician-reported changes in severe asthma care included use of video/phone consultations (46%), reduced availability of physicians (43%) and change to home-administered biologics (38%). Change to phone/video consultations was reported in 45% of patients, of whom 79% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Of 709 patients on biologics, 24% experienced changes in biologic care, of whom 92% were changed to home-administered biologics and of these 62% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Only 2% reported worsening asthma symptoms associated with changes in biologic care. Many physicians expect continued implementation of video/phone consultations (41%) and home administration of biologics (52%). Conclusions: Change to video/phone consultations and home administration of biologics was common in severe asthma care during the COVID-19 pandemic and was associated with high satisfaction levels in most but not all cases. Many physicians expect these changes to continue in future severe asthma care, though satisfaction levels may change after the pandemic.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on severe asthma care in Europe - will care change for good?

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has put pressure on health-care services forcing the reorganisation of traditional care pathways. We investigated how physicians taking care of severe asthma patients in Europe reorganised care, and how these changes affected patient satisfaction, asthma control and future care. Methods In this European-wide cross-sectional study, patient surveys were sent to patients with a physician-diagnosis of severe asthma, and physician surveys to severe asthma specialists between November 2020 and May 2021. Results 1101 patients and 268 physicians from 16 European countries contributed to the study. Common physician-reported changes in severe asthma care included use of video/phone consultations (46%), reduced availability of physicians (43%) and change to home-administered biologics (38%). Change to phone/video consultations was reported in 45% of patients, of whom 79% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Of 709 patients on biologics, 24% experienced changes in biologic care, of whom 92% were changed to home-administered biologics and of these 62% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Only 2% reported worsening asthma symptoms associated with changes in biologic care. Many physicians expect continued implementation of video/phone consultations (41%) and home administration of biologics (52%). Conclusions Change to video/phone consultations and home administration of biologics was common in severe asthma care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and was associated with high satisfaction levels in most but not all cases. Many physicians expect these changes to continue in future severe asthma care, though satisfaction levels may change after the pandemic.

Asthma patients experience increased symptoms of anxiety, depression and fear during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Population studies showed a decrease in psychological wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asthma is associated with a negative effect on anxiety and depression, which might worsen during the COVID-19 lockdown. The aim of the study was to compare fear, anxiety and depression between asthma patients and patients wit hout asthma pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 pandemic.This study compares fear, anxiety and depression in asthma patients and controls between pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 lockdown with a cross-sectional online survey. Participants were invited to fill out several questionnaires pertaining to fear, anxiety, depression, asthma control and quality of life.Asthma patients (N = 37) displayed, during the course of the pandemic, a clinically relevant increase in anxiety (3.32 ± 2.95 vs. 6.68 ± 3.78; p < 0.001) and depression (1.30 ± 1.15 vs. 3.65 ± 3.31; p < 0.001), according to the hospital anxiety and depression levels (HADS) compared to pre-COVID-19 assessment. This was not seen in controls. Also, asthma patients displayed more anxiety about acquiring COVID-19 disease compared to controls ((5.11 ± 1.99 vs. 3.50 ± 2.79), p = 0.006).Patients with asthma experienced an increase in anxiety and depression levels and were more afraid of acquiring COVID-19 disease compared to controls. Also, patients with asthma were more likely to avoid healthcare facilities due to fear of acquiring COVID-19 disease compared to controls. Therefore, we advise health care workers to address these possible negative effects on mental health by phone or e-consults.

Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·76-1·20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0·51 [0·27-0·95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0·52 (95% CI 0·26-1·05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1·07 (0·63-1·80; p=0·81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0·0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. FUNDING: Amsterdam Medical Center Foundation, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek/ZonMW, and the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative 2.

Pneumomediastinum in a patient with COVID-19 due to diffuse alveolar damage.

A 74-year-old man with COVID-19 was admitted and experienced progressive dyspnoea while receiving supplemental oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). A CT of the thorax showed a pneumomediastinum. The HFNC was temporally interrupted, since it was uncertain whether the positive end-expiratory pressure of the HFNC could be the cause of the pneumomediastinum. After restart of the HFNC, there was no increase of symptoms. We suggest that the pneumomediastinum was the result of COVID-19-related alveolar damage, and not due to the use of HFNC. This observation is relevant since HFNC is often used in the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Asthma exacerbation prevalence during the COVID-19 lockdown in a moderate-severe asthma cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Following the recent COVID-19 lockdown, a reduction in emergency healthcare visits was reported. Infectious diseases were less often diagnosed, while it was not clear if this was due to a decrease in prevalence or a decrease in emergency healthcare visits due to fear of COVID-19. METHODS: This study comprises a follow-up from a recently finished randomised controlled trial, to gain insight into the prevalence of asthma exacerbation and fear of COVID-19 in patients with moderate-severe asthma and controls in the Netherlands. Participants, patients with asthma and controls, were invited to fill out a short survey by email or post. Exacerbation frequencies until 1 July 2020 were verified with the hospitals' and general practitioners' medical records, pharmacies and patient interviews. RESULTS: In quarter 2 of 2020, mean exacerbation frequency per patient was significantly lower (χ2(3)=9.91, p=0.019) compared with quarter 2 in previous years. Patients with asthma were more likely to avoid (38.8%; controls, 0.0%, p<0.01) or delay (24.5%; controls, 0.0%, p=0.02) essential medical visits due to fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection at medical facilities. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we found a significantly reduced asthma exacerbation frequency during COVID-19 social distancing measures compared with previous years. Patients with asthma also showed more anxiety towards (acquiring) COVID-19 infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8576.

The impact of the involvement of a healthcare professional on the usage of an eHealth platform: a retrospective observational COPD study.

BACKGROUND: Ehealth platforms, since the outbreak of COVID-19 more important than ever, can support self-management in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The aim of this observational study is to explore the impact of healthcare professional involvement on the adherence of patients to an eHealth platform. We evaluated the usage of an eHealth platform by patients who used the platform individually compared with patients in a blended setting, where healthcare professionals were involved. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, log data from September 2011 until January 2018 were extracted from the eHealth platform Curavista. Patients with COPD who completed at least one Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) were included for analyses (n = 299). In 57% (n = 171) of the patients, the eHealth platform was used in a blended setting, either in hospital (n = 128) or primary care (n = 29). To compare usage of the platform between patients who used the platform independently or with a healthcare professional, we applied propensity score matching and performed adjusted Poisson regression analysis on CCQ-submission rate. RESULTS: Using the eHealth platform in a blended setting was associated with a 3.25 higher CCQ-submission rate compared to patients using the eHealth platform independently. Within the blended setting, the CCQ-submission rate was 1.83 higher in the hospital care group than in the primary care group. CONCLUSION: It is shown that COPD patients used the platform more frequently in a blended care setting compared to patients who used the eHealth platform independently, adjusted for age, sex and disease burden. Blended care seems essential for adherence to eHealth programs in COPD, which in turn may improve self-management.

Poor outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with severe asthma on biologic therapy.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether asthma and asthma medications increase or decrease the risk of severe COVID-19, and this is particularly true for patients with severe asthma receiving biologics. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess incidence and disease course of COVID-19 in patients with severe asthma on biologic therapy (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab), as compared with COVID-19 data from the general Dutch population. METHODS: COVID-19 cases were identified through a prospective ongoing survey between March 17 and April 30, 2020 among all severe asthma specialists from 15 hospitals of the Dutch Severe Asthma Registry RAPSODI. From these cases, data was collected on patient characteristics, including co-morbidities, COVID-19 disease progression and asthma exacerbations. Findings were then compared with COVID-19 data from the general Dutch population. RESULTS: Of 634 severe asthma patients who received biologic therapy in RAPSODI, 9 (1.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Seven patients (1.1%) required hospitalization for oxygen therapy, of which 5 were admitted to the intensive care for intubation and mechanical ventilation. One patient died (0.16%). All intubated patients had ≥1 co-morbidities. Odds (95%CI) for COVID-19 related hospitalization and intubations were 14 (6.6-29.5) and 41 (16.9-98.5) times higher, respectively, compared to the Dutch population. One patient presented with an asthma exacerbation. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe asthma using biologic therapy showed to have a more severe course of COVID-19 compared to the general population. This may be due to co-morbidities, the severity of asthmatic airway inflammation, the use of biologics, or a combination of these.

Analyses of abdominal adiposity and metabolic syndrome as risk factors for respiratory distress in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Several characteristics of the metabolic syndrome, such as obesity and hypertension, have emerged as risk factors for a poor clinical outcome in COVID-19. However, most reports lack data on the metabolic syndrome itself. This study investigated prospectively the relationship between respiratory deterioration and the presence of metabolic syndrome or abdominal adiposity in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study analysing patients with respiratory symptoms who presented at a local emergency department in the Netherlands. The influence of abdominal adiposity-assessed by an increased waist-hip ratio-and metabolic syndrome on respiratory deterioration and the length of hospital stay were analysed with multivariable logistic regressions and Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: In total, 166 patients were analysed, of whom 86 (52%) tested positive for COVID-19. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome did not differ between patients with COVID-19 with and without the need for intubation or level of supportive care (37.5% vs 48.4%, p=0.338). In contrast, abdominal adiposity is an independent risk factor for respiratory distress in COVID-19, adjusted for metabolic syndrome, age, gender and BMI (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.20, p=0.014). CONCLUSION: This study shows that abdominal adiposity, and not the presence of metabolic syndrome, is associated with clinical deterioration in COVID-19. This prospective study provides further insight into the risk stratification of patients with COVID-19 based on a simple measurement as the waist and hip circumference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8580.

Pneumothorax in patients with prior or current COVID-19 pneumonia.

As the number of COVID-19 cases emerge, new complications associated with the disease are recognized. We present three cases of spontaneous pneumothorax in patients with COVID-19. They show that a pneumothorax can occur during different phases of disease, in patients without a pulmonary disease history and is not necessarily associated to positive pressure ventilation or severity of COVID-19. Although the exact causative mechanisms remain unknown, this observation might imply that extensive alveolar destruction due to COVID-19 may lead to bulla formation resulting in subsequent pneumothorax.