COVID-19 vaccination acceptance, safety and side-effects in European patients with severe asthma.

Background: Vaccination is vital for achieving population immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, but vaccination hesitancy presents a threat to achieving widespread immunity. Vaccine acceptance in chronic potentially immunosuppressed patients is largely unclear, especially in patients with asthma. The aim of this study was to investigate the vaccination experience in people with severe asthma. Methods: Questionnaires about vaccination beliefs (including the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale, a measure of vaccination hesitancy-related beliefs), vaccination side-effects, asthma control and overall safety perceptions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination were sent to patients with severe asthma in 12 European countries between May and June 2021. Results: 660 participants returned completed questionnaires (87.4% response rate). Of these, 88% stated that they had been, or intended to be, vaccinated, 9.5% were undecided/hesitant and 3% had refused vaccination. Patients who hesitated or refused vaccination had more negative beliefs towards vaccination. Most patients reported mild (48.2%) or no side-effects (43.8%). Patients reporting severe side-effects (5.7%) had more negative beliefs. Most patients (88.8%) reported no change in asthma symptoms after vaccination, while 2.4% reported an improvement, 5.3% a slight deterioration and 1.2% a considerable deterioration. Almost all vaccinated (98%) patients would recommend vaccination to other severe asthma patients. Conclusions: Uptake of vaccination in patients with severe asthma in Europe was high, with a small minority refusing vaccination. Beliefs predicted vaccination behaviour and side-effects. Vaccination had little impact on asthma control. Our findings in people with severe asthma support the broad message that COVID-19 vaccination is safe and well tolerated.

Narrative review to capture patients' perceptions and opinions about non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: There are now many biological therapies to treat severe asthma. To assess which work best for which patient, we need to develop definitions of response. This narrative review aims to capture severe asthma patients' perceptions about non-response and response to biological therapy. METHODS: Four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Grey literature was searched with the involvement of patient representatives. A thematic approach was used for synthesis. No qualitative studies specifically explore patients' perspectives on response to biological therapy for severe asthma. Three papers and one published asthma patient interview were included. Relevant grey literature was included from online discussion forums, blogs and social media websites. RESULTS: Adult patients framed positive response to biological therapy in terms of reduced burden of disease and treatment. Both were multifaceted. Some patients experienced reduced benefit from biological therapy over time. There was a group of patients who described a limited response or non-response to biological therapy. This was framed within the context of continuing hospitalisation and oral corticosteroid treatment. The speed of onset of benefit was felt to be important by some. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions of non-response and response need to be patient-centred, yet there is a complete lack of qualitative research focused on this topic. By combining relevant published and grey literature we have provided a description of adult patients' perceptions of response to biological therapy in severe asthma. We now need to understand the views of children and adolescents with severe asthma and their carers, and diverse patient experiences in real-world settings.

Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline.

This document provides clinical recommendations for the management of severe asthma. Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Task Force's questions. The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by a multidisciplinary Task Force of asthma experts, who made specific recommendations on six specific questions. After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions, the Task Force made the following recommendations: 1) suggest using anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor α for severe uncontrolled adult eosinophilic asthma phenotypes; 2) suggest using a blood eosinophil cut-point ≥150 µL-1 to guide anti-IL-5 initiation in adult patients with severe asthma; 3) suggest considering specific eosinophil (≥260 µL-1) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (≥19.5 ppb) cut-offs to identify adolescents or adults with the greatest likelihood of response to anti-IgE therapy; 4) suggest using inhaled tiotropium for adolescents and adults with severe uncontrolled asthma despite Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 4-5 or National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) step 5 therapies; 5) suggest a trial of chronic macrolide therapy to reduce asthma exacerbations in persistently symptomatic or uncontrolled patients on GINA step 5 or NAEPP step 5 therapies, irrespective of asthma phenotype; and 6) suggest using anti-IL-4/13 for adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and for those with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma regardless of blood eosinophil levels. These recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.