Impact of patient support programmes among patients with severe asthma treated with biological therapies: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatment of severe asthma requires patient adherence to inhaled and biological medications. Previous work has shown that patient support programmes (PSP) can improve adherence in patients with chronic diseases, but the impact of PSPs in patients with severe asthma treated with biologics has not been thoroughly investigated. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to understand the impact of PSPs on treatment adherence, asthma control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with severe asthma. Embase, MEDLINE and EconLit databases were searched for studies published from 2003 (the year of the first biological approval for severe asthma) to June 2023 that described PSP participation among patients with severe asthma on biological treatment. Direct pooling of outcomes was not possible due to the heterogeneity across studies, so an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was performed to determine the effect of PSP participation on treatment discontinuation. The ITC used patient-level data from patients treated with benralizumab either enrolled in a PSP (VOICE study, Connect 360 PSP) or not enrolled in a PSP (Benralizumab Patient Access Programme study) in the UK. FINDINGS: 25 records of 21 studies were selected. Six studies investigated the impact of PSPs on treatment adherence, asthma control or HRQoL. All six studies reported positive outcomes for patients enrolled in PSPs; the benefits of each PSP were closely linked to the services provided. The ITC showed that patients in the Connect 360 PSP group were less likely to discontinue treatment compared with the non-PSP group (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PSPs contribute to positive clinical outcomes in patients with severe asthma on biological treatment. Future analyses will benefit from thorough descriptions of PSP services, and study designs that allow direct comparisons of patient outcomes with and without a PSP.

Benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma by previous biologic use and key clinical subgroups: real-world XALOC-1 programme.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal phase 3 trials and real-world studies have demonstrated benralizumab's overall efficacy and safety in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Additional large-cohort data are needed to confirm its real-world effectiveness in SEA according to previous biologic use and key baseline characteristics important for treatment selection. METHODS: XALOC-1 is a large, multinational, retrospective, observational, real-world study programme of benralizumab in adults with SEA. This 48-week integrated analysis assessed annualised exacerbation rate (AER), maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) use, asthma symptom control and lung function during a 12-month baseline period and up to 48 weeks after benralizumab initiation. Subgroup analyses were based on previous biologic use and key baseline clinical characteristics (mOCS use, blood eosinophil count, exacerbation history, age at asthma diagnosis, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level and presence of atopy and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps). RESULTS: Out of 1002 patients analysed, 380 were biologic-experienced. At week 48, 71.3% were exacerbation-free (versus 17.2% at baseline); relative reduction in AER was 82.7% overall and 72.9% in biologic-experienced patients; rates were maintained across all key clinical characteristic subgroups. Of patients using mOCS at baseline (n=274), 47.4% (130 out of 274) eliminated their use by week 48; the mean reduction from baseline in daily dose was 51.2% and, notably, 34.9% in biologic-experienced patients (n=115). Clinically significant improvements in asthma symptom control and lung function were observed. CONCLUSION: In this large, real-world programme, SEA patients treated with benralizumab had substantial improvements in clinical outcomes irrespective of previous biologic use and key clinical characteristics important to therapeutic decision-making in clinical practice.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in England prior to vaccination: a retrospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the prevaccination healthcare impact of COVID-19 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients with SLE from 1 May to 31 October 2020. SETTING: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) databases from general practitioners across England combining primary care and other health-related data. PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 6145 adults with confirmed SLE diagnosis ≥1 year prior to 1 May 2020 were included. Most patients were women (91.0%), white (67.1%), and diagnosed with SLE at age <50 (70.8%). Patients were excluded if they had a COVID-19 diagnosis before 1 May 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared. COVID-19 severity was determined by patient care required and procedure/diagnosis codes. COVID-19 cumulative incidence, hospitalisation rates, lengths of stay and mortality rates were determined and stratified by SLE and COVID-19 severity. RESULTS: Of 6145 patients, 3927 had mild, 1288 moderate and 930 severe SLE at baseline. The majority of patients with moderate to severe SLE were on oral corticosteroids and antimalarial treatments. Overall, 54/6145 (0.88%) patients with SLE acquired and were diagnosed with COVID-19, with 45 classified as mild, 6 moderate and 3 severe COVID-19. Cumulative incidence was higher in patients with severe SLE (1.4%) compared with patients classified as mild (0.8%) or moderate (0.8%). Ten COVID-19-specific hospital admissions occurred (n=6 moderate; n=4 severe). Regardless of COVID-19 status, hospital admission rates and length of stay increased with SLE severity. Of 54 patients with SLE diagnosed with COVID-19, 1 (1.9%) COVID-19-related death was recorded in a patient with both severe SLE and severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: SLE severity did not appear to impact COVID-19 outcomes in this study. The COVID-19 pandemic is evolving and follow-up studies are needed to understand the relationship between COVID-19 and SLE.

Global Burden of Asthma, and Its Impact on Specific Subgroups: Nasal Polyps, Allergic Rhinitis, Severe Asthma, Eosinophilic Asthma.

Background: The complex nature of asthma has resulted in a poor understanding of its epidemiology, particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC). Clinical subgroups, such as patients with severe asthma, eosinophilic asthma, allergic rhinitis, or nasal polyps, experience additional barriers to care. Methods: Prevalence estimates for asthma and key clinical subgroups were extracted from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 and from a targeted literature review conducted through PubMed in October of 2021. National estimates were calculated and the roles of potential explanatory factors were explored through qualitative analysis. Results: In total, 162 publications from 69 countries were included. Across continents, asthma prevalence values ranged from 3.44% (Asia), 3.67% (Africa), 4.90% (South America), 5.69% (Europe), 8.29% (North America), to 8.33% (Oceania). Globally, of those with asthma, 26.70% had severe asthma, 30.99% had eosinophilic asthma, 48.95% had allergic rhinitis, and 7.0% to 25.40% had nasal polyps. Countries with higher air quality, income status, and healthcare access and quality reported a higher asthma prevalence. Conclusion: Asthma prevalence values were low in LMICs, potentially indicating health system deficiencies resulting in low diagnosis and reporting. The prevalence of eosinophilic asthma and severe asthma phenotypes was high in many countries, although the prevalence estimates of all asthma subgroups were quite variable.

GOLD 2023 Update: Implications for Clinical Practice.

In 2022, over 3 million people died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the global burden of the disease is expected to increase over the coming decades. Recommendations for the treatment and management of patients with COPD are published by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, and updated annually with scientific evidence-based recommendations. The 2023 updates, published in November 2022, contain key changes to recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of COPD that are anticipated to have a significant impact on clinical practice for patients with COPD. Updates to how COPD is defined and diagnosed, including the expansion of contributing factors beyond tobacco use, have the potential to lead to the diagnosis of more patients and to allow for the implementation of early interventions for patients during early stages of the disease. Simplification of the treatment algorithms, and placement of triple therapy within these algorithms, will support clinicians in providing appropriate, timely treatment for patients with COPD with a focus on reducing the risk of future exacerbations. Finally, recognition of mortality reduction as a treatment goal in COPD supports an increase in the use of triple therapy, the only pharmacological intervention that has been demonstrated to improve survival for patients with COPD. Although further guidance and clarification are needed in some areas, such as use of blood eosinophil counts in guiding treatment decisions and implementation of treatment protocols following hospitalizations, recent updates to the GOLD recommendations will support clinicians in addressing current gaps in patient care. Clinicians should utilize these recommendations to drive the early diagnosis of patients with COPD, the identification of exacerbations, and the selection of appropriate, timely treatments for patients.

The burden of selected vaccine-preventable diseases on the secondary care health system in England: Results from a five-year administrative healthcare dataset.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined healthcare resource use (HCRU) for selected vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) in secondary care in England. METHODS: The hospital episode statistics (HES) dataset covering all secondary care interactions within the English National Health Service (NHS) from 2015 to 2021 was used to identify and track HCRU for patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis for pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), or a primary diagnosis only for hepatitis B, diphtheria, poliomyelitis, or tetanus. The first documented diagnosis during the study period (01/04/2015-31/03/2021) was the index event. RESULTS: 7,274 patients with a total of 5,554,343 patient-days (mean follow up 1,491 days) were included. The total number of hospital admissions was 27,092 and total inpatient cost was £4,987,770, with hepatitis B making up ∼80 % of this. Mean outpatient hospital appointments per patient were highest for tetanus (4.00), but total outpatient A&E cost burden was highest for Hib (£643,343 [mean per attendance £144.57]). For patients 0-9 years of age (n = 1,917), pertussis (n = 1,547) and Hib (n = 313) were by far the most commonly coded diseases. Hepatitis B was the most common disease in adults of working age and Hib was most prevalent in adults of retirement age. Surprisingly, poliomyelitis was observed in the database potentially due to historic diagnoses and/or coding inaccuracy. Other discrepancies with surveillance data were noted. CONCLUSIONS: VPDs impose a large burden on the NHS, but there is potential to reduce this and improve public health by optimising vaccination schedules, improving access and ensuring high coverage rates.

Epidemiology, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Mortality of Asthma and COPD in COVID-19: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.

Purpose: There has been concern that asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] increase the risk of developing and exacerbating COVID-19. The effect of medications such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and biologics on COVID-19 is unclear. This systematic literature review analyzed the published evidence on epidemiology and the burden of illness of asthma and COPD, and the use of baseline medicines among COVID-19 populations. Patients and Methods: Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Embase®, MEDLINE® and Cochrane were searched (January 2019-August 2021). The prevalence of asthma or COPD among COVID-19 populations was compared to the country-specific populations. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) rates, and meta-analyses of outcomes were estimated from age-adjusted ORs (aORs) or hazard ratios (aHRs). Meta-analyses of COVID-19 outcomes were conducted using random effects models for binary outcomes. Results: Given the number and heterogeneity of studies, only 183 high-quality studies were analyzed, which reported hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, ventilation/intubation, or mortality. Asthma patients were not at increased risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.20), ICU admission (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.1.48), ventilation/intubation (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.62), or mortality (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.96). Accounting for confounding variables, COPD patients were at higher risk of hospitalization (aOR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.61), ICU admission (aOR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.51), and mortality (aOR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.37 to 1.65). Sixty-five studies reported outcomes associated with ICS or biologic use. There was limited evidence that ICS or biologics significantly impacted the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, HCRU, or mortality in asthma or COPD patients. Conclusion: In high-quality studies included, patients with asthma were not at significantly higher odds for adverse COVID-19-related outcomes, while patients with COPD were at higher odds. There was no clear evidence that baseline medication affected outcomes. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021233963).

Prevalence and Patient Outcomes of Adult Primary Hypercholesterolemia and Dyslipidemia in the UK: Longitudinal Retrospective Study Using a Primary Care Dataset from 2009 to 2019.

Background: Guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias recommend intensive low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) control through lifestyle advice and lipid-lowering drugs to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Objective: This retrospective study aimed to characterize the adult primary care population with primary hypercholesterolemia (PH)/mixed dyslipidemia (MD). Methods: Data on adults with PH/MD between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2019 in the UK were extracted from linked primary Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics) datasets and analyzed. Results: A total of 279,221 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 8.6 years. Crude prevalence of PH/MD increased from 13.5% in 2009 to 23.5% by 2019. The incidence decreased from 176 to 49 per 100,000 population. Mean age of the cohort was 58 years, baseline LDL-C was 4.32 mmol/L, 19.6% had atherosclerotic CVD, 30.1% diabetes, and 8.5% heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Estimated LDL-C reductions of 40% and 50% were achieved in 2.6% and 2.3% of patients, respectively. Most received moderate-intensity statins as monotherapy (62.4%); high-intensity statins were used less frequently (24.3% as initial treatment). Less than 10% of patients received ezetimibe plus statins of different intensities. Conclusion: The prevalence of dyslipidemia doubled between 2009 and 2019, likely due to more systematic identification of PH/MD. A large proportion of patients with PH/MD are of high and very high CV risk, remain suboptimally treated in terms of lipid lowering, and may experience CV events with associated non-negligible clinical and economic sequelae. Despite intensive LDL-C-lowering recommendations, these do not translate in clinical practice to the wider population.

Economic Aspects of Delivering Primary Care Services: An Evidence Synthesis to Inform Policy and Research Priorities.

Policy Points The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. While there is a large amount of literature on the economic aspects of delivering primary care services, there is a need for more comprehensive overviews of this evidence. In this article, we offer such an overview. Evidence suggests that there are several strategies involving coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements which can, if implemented, have positive economic impacts on the delivery of primary care services. These include arrangements such as worker task-shifting and telemedicine. The implementation of any such arrangements, based on positive economic evidence, should carefully account for potential impacts on overall health care access and quality. There are many opportunities for further research, with notable gaps in evidence on the impacts of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services. CONTEXT: The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. To strengthen primary health care, policymakers need guidance on how to allocate resources in a manner that maximizes its economic benefits. METHODS: We collated and synthesized published systematic reviews of evidence on the economic aspects of different models of delivering primary care services. Building on previous efforts, we adapted existing taxonomies of primary care components to classify our results according to four categories: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance. FINDINGS: We identified and classified 109 reviews that met our inclusion criteria according to our taxonomy of primary care components: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements. A significant body of evidence suggests that several specific primary care arrangements, such as health workers' task shifting and telemedicine, can have positive economic impacts (such as lower overall health care costs). Notably absent were reviews on the impact of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great opportunity for further research to systematically examine the broader economic impacts of investing in primary care services. Despite progress over the last decade, significant evidence gaps on the economic implications of different models of primary care services remain, which could help inform the basis of future research efforts.

Risk communication and community engagement strategies for COVID-19 in 13 African countries.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is a major threat facing health systems globally and African countries are not an exception. Stakeholders, governments, and national authorities have mounted responses to contain the pandemic. This study aimed to catalogue the risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) strategies as well as the challenges facing RCCE in 13 African countries. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of evidence to answer the aim of the study. The search was conducted in March 2021 and evidence published between December 2019 and February 2021 were included. Data reported in this article were obtained from reports, literature in peer-reviewed journals, grey literature and other data sources in 13 African countries. The 13 countries include Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Algeria, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritius, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. The authors also snowball further data to gather information for this review. Results: Most of the priority African countries have RCCE strategies to contain the transmission and spread of the coronavirus. Our findings revealed RCCE strategies in the 13 African countries focused on training and capacity building, risk communication systems, internal and partners' coordination, community engagement, public communication, contending uncertainty, addressing misperceptions and managing misinformation. However, the RCCE response activities were not without challenges, which included distrust in government, cultural, social, and religious resistance, and inertia among others. Conclusion: With the similar RCCE approaches and interventions seen across the countries, it is clear that countries are learning from each other and from global health organizations to develop COVID-19 RCCE programs. It is important for African countries to address the challenges facing RCCE in order to effectively contain the pandemic and to prepare for future public health emergencies.

COVID-19 surveillance systems in African countries.

Background: Surveillance forms the basis for response to disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. Herein, we identified the COVID-19 surveillance systems and the associated challenges in 13 African countries. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive narrative review of peer-reviewed literature published between January 2020 and April 2021 in PubMed, Medline, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar using predetermined search terms. Relevant studies from the search and other data sources on COVID-19 surveillance strategies and associated challenges in 13 African countries (Mauritius, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Ethiopia, South Africa, Kenya, Zambia, Tanzania, and Uganda) were identified and reviewed. Results: Our findings revealed that the selected African countries have ramped up COVID-19 surveillance ranging from immediate case notification, virological surveillance, hospital-based surveillance to mortality surveillance among others. Despite this, there exist variations in the level of implementation of the surveillance systems across countries. Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) strategy is also being leveraged in some African countries, but the implementation across countries remains uneven. Our study also revealed various challenges facing surveillance which included shortage of skilled human resources resulting in poor data management, weak health systems, complexities of ethical considerations, diagnostic insufficiency, the burden of co-epidemic surveillance, and geographical barriers, among others. Conclusion: With the variations in the level of implementation of COVID-19 surveillance strategies seen across countries, it is pertinent to ensure proper coordination of the surveillance activities in the African countries and address all the challenges facing COVID-19 surveillance using tailored strategies.

Clinical and financial burden of hospitalised community-acquired pneumonia in patients with selected underlying comorbidities in England.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalised pneumonia may have long-term clinical and financial impact in adult patients with underlying comorbidities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database to determine the clinical and financial burden over 3 years of hospitalised community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) to England's National Health Service (NHS). Subjects were adults with six underlying comorbidities (chronic heart disease (CHD); chronic kidney disease (CKD); chronic liver disease (CLD); chronic respiratory disease (CRD); diabetes mellitus (DM) and post bone marrow transplant (post-BMT)) with an inpatient admission in 2012/2013. Patients with CAP in 2013/2014 were followed for 3 years and compared with similarly aged, propensity score-matched adults with the same comorbidity without CAP. FINDINGS: The RR of hospital admissions increased after CAP, ranging from 1.08 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.12) for CKD to 1.38 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.40) for CRD. This increase was maintained for at least 2 years. Mean difference in hospital healthcare costs (£) was higher for CAP patients in 2013/2014; ranging from £1115 for DM to £8444 for BMT, and remained higher for 4/6 groups for 2 more years, ranging from £1907 (95% CI £1573 to £2240) for DM to £11 167 (95% CI £10 847 to £11 486) for CRD.) The OR for mortality was significantly higher for at least 3 years after CAP, ranging from 4.76 (95% CI 4.12 to 5.51, p<0.0001) for CLD to 7.50 (95%CI 4.71 to 11.92, p<0.0001) for BMT. INTERPRETATION: For patients with selected underlying comorbidities, healthcare utilisation, costs and mortality increase for at least 3 years after being hospitalised CAP.

COVID-19 and Health Professions Education: A 360° View of the Impact of a Global Health Emergency.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. COVID-19 and the resulting lockdown policies have far ranging effects on health professions education (HPEd), with an impact in all its aspects, including curricula, teaching methods, student selection processes, educational outcomes, HPEd research, and student, teacher, and school welfare. Adaptations to the pandemic and lockdown measures have leaned heavily on technology. The effects may have differences across various health professions particularly those with an emphasis on psychomotor skills. There may also be differences among populations of students, teachers and schools related to the availability, accessibility and cost of technology. The rapid, forced change in the paradigms of health professions education across the globe may persist as long as lockdown measures and threat of resurgence remains, even as COVID-19 still sweeps across different countries.

Systematic review of health state utility values for acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) require health state utility values (HSUVs) in order to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each health state. AIM: This study reviewed AML-related HSUVs that could be used in economic evaluation studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2000 to November 2016 for relevant studies that reported quality of life (QoL) and HSUVs in AML. Identified relevant European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 values were mapped to HSUVs. HSUVs for each health state in the AML treatment pathway were then collated. RESULTS: Ten relevant studies were identified. Six were cost-effectiveness analyses utilizing HSUVs for calculation of QALYs, one was an effectiveness analysis (incremental QALY), and two were QoL studies reporting AML-specific utilities. An additional study reported QoL for patients undergoing stem cell transplantation (SCT). Since no study reported HSUVs for relapse, values from a study of secondary AML patients who failed prior treatment for myelodysplastic syndrome were used. Where multiple HSUVs were available, collected values were given priority over assumed values. AML treatment (induction, consolidation, or SCT) was associated with decreased HSUV, while post-treatment complete remission led to increased HSUV. CONCLUSION: There are some methodologically robust HSUVs that can be directly used in economic evaluations for AML. Careful interpretation is advised considering significant differences in methodologies and patient population (inclusion, size). We need to develop HSUVs with larger-sized studies, making greater use of condition-specific data.