A prediction model for asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the prediction of the risks of asthma exacerbation after stopping asthma biologics. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics using machine learning models. METHODS: We identified 3057 people with asthma who stopped asthma biologics in the OptumLabs Database Warehouse and considered a wide range of demographic and clinical risk factors to predict subsequent outcomes. The primary outcome used to assess success after stopping was having no exacerbations in the 6 months after stopping the biologic. Elastic-net logistic regression (GLMnet), random forest, and gradient boosting machine models were used with 10-fold cross-validation within a development (80%) cohort and validation cohort (20%). RESULTS: The mean age of the total cohort was 47.1 (SD, 17.1) years, 1859 (60.8%) were women, 2261 (74.0%) were White, and 1475 (48.3%) were in the Southern region of the United States. The elastic-net logistic regression model yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78) in the development and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The random forest model yielded an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The gradient boosting machine model yielded an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.74 in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: Outcomes after stopping asthma biologics can be predicted with moderate accuracy using machine learning methods.

Asthma biologic trial eligibility and real-world outcomes in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of real-world patients who would have been eligible for asthma biologics to those who would not have been eligible. METHODS: We used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW) to categorize patients into eligible and ineligible groups based on clinical trials (n = 19 trials) used for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. We then compared the change in the number of asthma exacerbations before and after biological initiation between the two groups. RESULTS: The percentage of people who would have been eligible for asthma biologic clinical trials ranged from 0-10.2%. The eligible group had a greater reduction in number of asthma exacerbations compared to the ineligible group based on eligibility criteria from 1 omalizumab trial (1.52, 95% CI 1.25, 1.8 in eligible vs. 0.47, 95% CI 0.43, 0.52 in ineligible) and from 1 dupilumab trial (1.6, 95% CI 0.92, 2.28 in eligible vs. 0.52, 95% CI 0.38, 0.65 ineligible). Notably, 15 of the 19 trials had fewer than 11 eligible people, limiting additional comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 1 in 10 people in the United States treated with asthma biologics would have been eligible to participate in the trial for the biologic they used. Where comparisons could be made, trial eligible people have a greater reduction in exacerbations.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2010749 .

Persistence of asthma biologic use in a US claims database.

BACKGROUND: Little is known on the persistence of asthma biologic use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the persistence of asthma biologic use and time to clinical response in clinical practice. METHODS: A cohort of people with asthma who used at least 1 asthma biologic was constructed using data from 2003 to 2019 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Treatment persistence was defined by the length of time that a person continuously used an asthma biologic, allowing for a lapse in use up to 4 months before confirming that a person stopped. Clinical response to treatment (defined as a decline in asthma exacerbations of at least 50% compared with the 6 months before starting an asthma biologic) was described over time and in relation to biologic persistence. RESULTS: There were 9575 people who had at least 1 episode of asthma biologic use. There were 5319 people (64%, 95% confidence interval, 63%-65%) who completed 6 months or more on an asthma biologic and 3284 (45%, 95% confidence interval, 44%-46%) who completed 12 months or more. Of people with 1 or more asthma exacerbation 6 months before index biologic use, 63%, 76%, 80%, and 81% realized a 50% or more reduction in postindex asthma exacerbations in the first 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and 18 to 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Between 48% and 64% of people remained on an asthma biologic for 6 months or more after first use. Most people who achieved a reduction in asthma exacerbations did so in the first 6 months of treatment.

Asthma Patients Who Stop Asthma Biologics Have a Similar Risk of Asthma Exacerbations as Those Who Continue Asthma Biologics.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information about outcomes associated with stopping asthma biologics. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in people who stopped or continued asthma biologics. METHODS: We identified a cohort of people with asthma who stopped or continued asthma biologics in the Optum Labs Database Warehouse, using a propensity matching method for case and control groups with the variables of age, sex, race, region, insurance, income, specialist access, Charlson comorbidity, specific medical conditions, pre-index exacerbation count, pre-index rescue inhaler pharmacy fills, and pre-index inhaled corticosteroid with or without long-acting ß-agonist pharmacy fills. Primary outcome used to assess failure of stopping was an increase of 50% or more in the asthma exacerbation rate in the 6 months after discontinuing the biologic compared with the 6-month period before biologic initiation. RESULTS: Among a cohort of 4960 asthma biologic users, 1249 were observed to stop use after 6 to 12 months of use. We identified a matched cohort of 1247 stoppers and 1247 people who continued biologic use for at least 18 months. In the first 6 months after stopping or sham stopping, 10.2% of stoppers and 9.5% of continuers had an increase of 50% or more in asthma exacerbations. We found a similar adjusted odds of failing among stoppers and continuers (odds ratio = 1.085; 95% confidence interval, 0.833-1.413). CONCLUSIONS: An increase in asthma exacerbations is infrequently observed in people who stopped asthma biologics and was observed at similar rates as in matched controls who continued asthma biologics.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about adherence to asthma biologics. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) associated with subsequent asthma biologic adherence? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed individuals with asthma who started asthma biologics in the OptumLab Data Warehouse and used that data until October 2019. We calculated proportion days covered (PDC) for ICS ± long-acting ß-agonists in the 6 months before and after asthma biologics were started and asthma biologic PDC for the first 6 months of use. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75, ICS PDC ≥0.75 during the 6-month period after asthma biologic were started, and achievement of a ≥50% reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use. RESULTS: We identified 5,319 people who started asthma biologics. The mean PDC for asthma biologics was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75-0.77) in the first 6 months after starting, higher than the mean PDCs for ICS in the 6 months before (0.44 [95% CI, 0.43-0.45]) and after (0.40 [95% CI, 0.39-0.40]) starting the asthma biologic. PDC ≥0.75 for ICS 6 months before index biologic use is associated with PDC for asthma biologics ≥0.75 (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43) and for ICS during the first 6 months of biologic use (OR, 9.93; 95% CI, 8.55-11.53). Neither ICS PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14) nor asthma biologic PDC ≥0.75 (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36) is associated with a statistically significant reduction in asthma exacerbations during the first 6 months of asthma biologic use among people with any exacerbation in the 6 months before first use. INTERPRETATION: Adherence to asthma biologic is higher than to ICS and is associated with different factors.

Sleep disordered breathing with excessive daytime sleepiness is a risk factor for mortality in older adults.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is associated with increased mortality in older adults, yet sleep disordered breathing (SDB), a common cause of sleepiness, has not been shown to increase mortality in older adults. This study examined the relationship between daytime sleepiness, SDB, self-report sleep parameters, and mortality in older adults. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Clinical and Translational Research Center, at-home testing. PARTICIPANTS: 289 study participants (age >65, no dementia or depression at the time of enrollment) classified as having EDS (n=146) or not (n=143). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Study participants underwent in-lab polysomnography and multiple sleep latency testing at cohort inception. Survival analysis was conducted, with an average follow-up of 13.8 years. Excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with an unadjusted mortality hazard ratio of 1.5 (95% CI 1.1-2.0). The unadjusted mortality hazard ratio for study participants with both EDS and SDB (apnea-hypopnea index ≥20 events/h) was 2.7, 95% CI: 1.8-4.2. These findings persisted with an adjusted mortality hazard ratio of 2.3, 95% CI: 1.5-3.6 in the final model that included other covariates associated with increased mortality (sleep duration >8.5 h, self-reported angina, male gender, African American race, and age). CONCLUSION: The presence of SDB is an important risk factor for mortality from excessive daytime sleepiness in older adults. In the presence of SDB at an AHI ≥20 events/h, EDS was associated with an increased all-cause mortality risk in older adults, even when adjusting for other significant risk factors, such as prolonged sleep duration. In older patients who had SDB without EDS, or EDS without SDB, there was no increased all-cause mortality rate.