Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study

Anne-Noelle Frix, Liam G. Heaney, Barbro Dahlén, Florin Mihaltan, Svetlana Sergejeva, Sanja Popović-Grle, Vratislav Sedlak, Lauri Lehtimäki, Arnaud Bourdin, Stephanie Korn, Eleftherios Zervas, Zsuzsanna Csoma, Dora Lúðvíksdóttir, Marcus Butler, Giorgio Walter Canonica, Ineta Grisle, Kristina Bieksiene, Anneke Ten Brinke, Piotr Kuna, Claudia Chaves Loureiro, Natalia M. Nenasheva, Zorica Lazic, Sabina Škrgat, David Ramos-Barbon, Joerg Leuppi, Bilun Gemicioglu, Apostolos Bossios, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, Elisabeth H. Bel, Ratko Djukanovic, Renaud Louis
ERJ Open Research 2022 8: 00273-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00273-2022
Anne-Noelle Frix
1Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: AN.Frix@chuliege.be
Liam G. Heaney
2Centre for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbro Dahlén
3Respiratory Medicine Unit, Department of Medicine, Solna Campus, and Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Florin Mihaltan
4National Institute of Pneumology M. Nasta, Bucharest, Romania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Svetlana Sergejeva
5Institute of Technology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sanja Popović-Grle
6The Clinic for Lung Diseases Jordanovac, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vratislav Sedlak
7Department of Pneumology, University Hospital and Charles University Faculty of Medicine, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lauri Lehtimäki
8Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, and Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lauri Lehtimäki
Arnaud Bourdin
9PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Arnaud Bourdin
Stephanie Korn
10Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Mainz, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eleftherios Zervas
11Respiratory Medicine Department and Asthma Center, Athens Chest Hospital “Sotiria”, Athens, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eleftherios Zervas
Zsuzsanna Csoma
12National Korányi Institute of Pulmonology, Budapest, Hungary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dora Lúðvíksdóttir
13Department of Allergy, Respiratory Medicine and Sleep Landspitali University Hospital Reykjavik Iceland, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcus Butler
14St Vincent's University Hospital, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
15School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marcus Butler
Giorgio Walter Canonica
16Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Giorgio Walter Canonica
Ineta Grisle
17Latvian Association of Allergists Center of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Riga, Latvia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kristina Bieksiene
18Department of Pulmonology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anneke Ten Brinke
19Department of Respiratory Medicine, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Piotr Kuna
20Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Barlicki University Hospital Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claudia Chaves Loureiro
21Pulmonology Department, Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natalia M. Nenasheva
22Department of Allergology and Immunology, Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow, Russia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zorica Lazic
23Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Kragujevac, and Clinic for Pulmonology, Clinical Centre, Kragujevac, Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sabina Škrgat
24University Clinic of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases, Golnik, Slovenia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Ramos-Barbon
25Respiratory Research Unit, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario & Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de A Coruña (INIBIC), Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joerg Leuppi
26University Clinic of Medicine, Cantonal Hospital Basel, Liestal, Switzerland
27University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bilun Gemicioglu
28Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Apostolos Bossios
29Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Apostolos Bossios
Celeste M. Porsbjerg
30Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elisabeth H. Bel
31Department of Respiratory Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ratko Djukanovic
32Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
33NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, Southampton, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Renaud Louis
34Department of Respiratory Medicine, Liège University Hospital, Liège, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction Treatment with biologics for severe asthma is informed by international and national guidelines and defined by national regulating bodies, but how these drugs are used in real-life is unknown.

Materials and methods The European Respiratory Society (ERS) SHARP Clinical Research Collaboration conducted a three-step survey collecting information on asthma biologics use in Europe. Five geographically distant countries defined the survey questions, focusing on seven end-points: biologics availability and financial issues, prescription and administration modalities, inclusion criteria, continuation criteria, switching biologics, combining biologics and evaluation of corticosteroid toxicity. The survey was then sent to SHARP National Leads of 28 European countries. Finally, selected questions were submitted to a broad group of 263 asthma experts identified by national societies.

Results Availability of biologics varied between countries, with 17 out of 28 countries having all five existing biologics. Authorised prescribers (pulmonologists and other specialists) also differed. In-hospital administration was the preferred deliverance modality. While exacerbation rate was used as an inclusion criterion in all countries, forced expiratory volume in 1 s was used in 46%. Blood eosinophils were an inclusion criterion in all countries for interleukin-5 (IL-5)-targeted and IL-4/IL-13-targeted biologics, with varying thresholds. There were no formally established criteria for continuing biologics. Reduction in exacerbations represented the most important benchmark, followed by improvement in asthma control and quality of life. Only 73% (191 out of 263) of surveyed clinicians assessed their patients for corticosteroid-induced toxicity.

Conclusion Our study reveals important heterogeneity in the use of asthma biologics across Europe. To what extent this impacts on clinical outcomes relevant to patients and healthcare services needs further investigation.

Abstract

This study, based on a three-step survey among 28 European countries, has demonstrated some similarities but also great disparities in the availability and use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe https://bit.ly/3pqwlC5

Introduction

Asthma is a chronic disease characterised by variable airway obstruction, underpinned by airway inflammation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and occasional acute exacerbations. It affects 1–18% of the world population [1], with 3.5% to 5% of patients having severe disease [2], displaying higher morbidity and representing >50% of the direct total cost of asthma management [1] due to increased use of medications, emergency department visits and hospitalisations. The European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) consensus defines severe asthma as a pattern of disease requiring high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and a second controller, such as oral corticosteroids (OCS) or long-acting β-agonists, to prevent it from being uncontrolled, or that remains uncontrolled despite well-applied therapy [1, 3].

The main aims of asthma treatment are reduction in exacerbations, improvement in quality of life and lung function, and minimisation of long-term adverse events from corticosteroids [1]. Improved characterisation of severe asthma pathophysiology [4, 5] has led to development of biological therapies aiming to modulate the airway inflammatory processes driven by IgE and type 2 interleukins (IL)-4, -5 and -13 [6]. Five biologics are currently available: omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab (table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Biologics available in severe asthma

The “Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centered” (SHARP), is a Clinical Research Collaboration (CRC) of the ERS with an overall ambition to improve asthma care and wellbeing of patients with severe asthma across Europe, through a patient-centred approach [7]. Discussions between four stakeholders (patients, clinicians, scientists and pharmaceutical companies) have identified the use of biologics as an important issue to study so as to inform best practice and ensure that the right patient is given the most effective biological treatment.

While evidence-based guidance on treatment with biologics is provided by international (European Medicines Agency (EMA)) or national agencies (e.g. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK), pricing and reimbursement criteria are defined at national level in each country, potentially leading to heterogeneity in their use. A previous study performed by the SHARP/ERS research group indicated that the severe asthmatic population in Europe is heterogeneous and differs in both clinical characteristics and treatment regimen before initiation of any biologics [8]. Harmonising the use of biologics in Europe is of interest for reproducible clinical practice and effective comparison of treatments in longitudinal and multicentric real-life studies. In order to understand current and influence future practice, we conducted a survey in 28 European nations to investigate how biologics are currently employed, focusing on key treatment indicators: availability, inclusion criteria, administration modalities and continuation criteria.

Materials and methods

We applied a three-step survey (figure 1) to describe the use of biologics across Europe between June 2020 and April 2021. In the first step (June 2020 to November 2020), five geographically distant countries (Belgium, Estonia, Romania, Sweden, UK) were selected to define the survey questions during virtual meetings, assisted by the SHARP support team, focusing on availability of biologics, their administration and criteria for inclusion or continuation of treatment. In the second step (November 2020 to April 2021), the survey was extended (by e-mail correspondence) to all SHARP National Leads in 28 European countries (SHARP National Leads survey, table 2). In the third step (January 2021 to April 2021), a selection of questions was submitted to a larger audience of 263 asthma experts across Europe, identified by their national societies (Experts Broad Survey).

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Study flow chart: a three-step survey.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Availability of biologics in Europe (as of April 2021)

The survey involving SHARP National Leads covered seven end-points.

1) Availability and financial issues. Lists of biologics available in individual countries and financial issues (patient contribution or fixed hospital budget dedicated to biologics) were requested. We analysed the number of available biotherapies related to per capita gross domestic product (GDP), comparing countries with ≤3 and those with >3 biologics.

2) Prescription and administration modalities. Information on prescribers (pulmonologist, allergologist, ENTs (ear–nose–throat, otorhinolaryngologist), paediatrician, team of experts) was collected, together with prescription and administration modalities (home or hospital administration).

3) Inclusion criteria. Participants provided the criteria for prescribing biologics, focusing on each biologic individually, singling out common basic criteria among nations, together with additional criteria specifically required in some countries.

4) Continuation criteria. Details were requested for how and when effectiveness of biologics was evaluated and how decisions were made whether to continue treatment. After the initial survey returned multiple and diverse criteria, a second survey, containing 10 objective criteria commonly used to assess efficacy in severe asthma clinical trials, was undertaken. National Leads were asked to rank those criteria in order of importance. We separated two groups of patients to apply those criteria: those on and those not on maintenance OCS. The survey participants ranked criteria between 1 and 10 (from most to least important). The mean value was calculated for each criterion's rank in order to obtain a complete ranking of objective criteria.

5) Switching biologics. SHARP National Leads were asked to describe how easy it was to switch from one biotherapy to another.

6) Combining biologics. SHARP National Leads were asked whether combining biologics was possible in their country.

7) Evaluation of corticosteroid toxicity. Participants were asked whether and how they evaluated corticosteroid toxicity in patients with severe asthma.

After completing the National Leads survey, the broad panel of European asthma experts (Experts Broad Survey) were surveyed to validate the following end-points: 4) Continuation criteria, 5) Switching biologics, 6) Combining biologics and 7) Evaluation of corticosteroid toxicity.

Statistics

Parametric unpaired t-tests compared GDP per capita and number of available biologics. Objective continuation criteria were ranked by calculating the mean value for each criterion's rank: the lower the mean item score, the higher the importance of the criterion.

Results

Availability and financial issues

The details of biologics available in the surveyed countries are shown in table 2. Availability was related to per capita GDP, which was significantly (p=0.0072) lower in countries with ≤3 biologics (n=7) than in those with >3 biologics (n=21) (USD 16 831±9102 versus USD 41 302±21 327) (figure 2). Patient financial contribution was required in nine countries: patients had to pay a percentage of total cost in six countries, whereas those from the three others had a fixed amount to pay. Six countries worked with a fixed hospital budget dedicated to biologics.

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Comparison of the number of available biotherapies according to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Results are expressed as mean±sem; data analysed by parametric unpaired t-tests.

Prescription and administration modalities

Biologics could be prescribed by a single prescriber in all but three countries, where decisions were taken by a team/panel of experts (including pulmonologists, allergologists, paediatricians and ENTs). Pulmonologists were sole prescribers in four countries, whereas allergologists and paediatricians could also prescribe biologics for severe asthma in the other countries. Initial administration was performed in hospitals in all countries, with subsequent home administration possible in 20.

Inclusion criteria

Exacerbation rates were inclusion criterion in all (n=28) countries, with a threshold of ≥2/year, except in two countries for which cut-off was 1/year (table 3). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was used in 46% of countries, mainly for omalizumab, with a threshold at FEV1 <80% of predicted value, except for one country with a threshold <50% of predicted. Blood eosinophil counts were used in all countries for IL-5- and IL-4- targeted medications, but threshold values differed between biologics and countries, ranging from 150 to 500·µL−1. To prescribe omalizumab, serum IgE levels were used in all countries with an inclusion threshold varying from 30 to 148 IU·mL−1, and evidence of sensitisation to at least one aero-allergen, as judged by serum-specific IgE or prick tests, was required in 21 countries (75%). Additional criteria had to be met for certain biologics, such as asthma control and quality of life questionnaires, good adherence to existing treatment, evidence of non-smoking status (e.g. saliva cotinine levels), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), sputum eosinophil levels and expert consensus meeting prior to initiation of treatment.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Inclusion criteria for severe asthma biotherapies in Europe

Assessment of effectiveness and criteria for continuation

Recommendations for treatment duration before first evaluation after starting therapy and modalities to assess treatment effectiveness differed between countries and biologics. In 13 countries, clinicians were required to perform an assessment at 4–6 months and continue medication only if effectiveness was proven, whereas in three countries this was done at 1 year. However, in 12 countries, unlimited initial reimbursement was directly granted.

Although effectiveness evaluation was mandatory in most countries, assessment criteria were not strictly defined. Some countries had few objective criteria and mainly assessed patients’ subjective responses, whereas others needed demonstration of improvement in objective benchmarks, such as reduction in exacerbation rate and/or maintenance OCS dose or positive change in the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) score (for omalizumab).

After analysing these preliminary results, a predefined ranking questionnaire was sent back to National Leads and to the wider group of 263 asthma experts (table 4). For patients on maintenance OCS, the four most important criteria were similar in the SHARP National Leads survey and the Experts Broad Survey. For participants, the most meaningful criteria of effectiveness were the reductions in exacerbation rate by 75% and 50% and reduction in maintenance OCS dose. For patients not on maintenance OCS, the four most important criteria were identical between the two groups, represented by reduction in exacerbation rate (by 75%, 50% then 25%) then improvement of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) (by one on 1 year). Overall, the reduction in exacerbations was the most important criterion, followed by improvements in asthma control and quality of life scores. The least important criterion was 5% improvement in FEV1 both for patients on and those not on OCS.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

Assessment of effectiveness in biologics: ranking of objective criteria

Switching biologics

The survey in SHARP National Leads revealed that it is easy to switch between biologics, although one country (1 out of 28) reported difficulties and one had no experience. The Experts Broad Survey showed that 202 out of 263 participants (77%) found it easy to switch between biologics. For those who faced difficulties in switching, the main reasons were lack of experience, formal prohibition, need for a wash-out period, health insurance issues and cost.

Combining biologics

The SHARP National Leads survey revealed that combining biologics was not authorised in 16 countries, while there were no formal restrictions in the other 12, but experience was lacking. This was verified by the Experts Broad Survey, which showed that combining biologics was not allowed or not-tested for 81% of participants.

Evaluation of corticosteroids toxicity

The SHARP National Leads survey revealed that corticosteroid-induced toxicity was assessed in 20 countries (mainly by clinical evaluation and cortisol blood levels). This was supported by data extracted from the Experts Broad Survey, which showed evaluation by 70% of experts. Cortisol blood level and clinical evaluation were also the most commonly used assessment modalities.

Discussion

Our study shows that availability of biologics, especially those most recently licensed, varies across Europe. This was also recently observed in the International Severe Asthma Registry [9]. In our survey, the wealthier countries (by GDP per capita) offer a greater choice of biologics. Large variation was observed in medical criteria for reimbursing the patients. Although any financial contributions imposed on the patient vary greatly between countries, it was encouraging to see that health insurance covers the majority of the cost in all countries. Our survey also demonstrated differences in prescription and administration modalities, albeit without negative impact on initiation of treatment. Three countries required an expert panel to initiate treatment; whether or not this impacts on clinical outcomes is unclear, but we speculate that expert panels discussing each case individually, especially during multi-disciplinary meetings, may be more likely to pick up other unmet needs for which alternative treatment modalities could be offered. We also speculate that this could reduce unnecessary premature introduction of biologics. We also noticed differences in prescribers (pulmonologist, allergologist, paediatrician). Furthermore, while hospital administration of biologics is standard in every country, home administration was possible in 71% of countries, making it easier for patients living at distance from the hospital to access those medications in some but not all European countries.

Surprisingly, our survey revealed marked differences in treatment inclusion criteria. Remarkably, some countries have established reimbursement criteria that do not strictly follow the clinical or laboratory criteria used in monoclonal antibodies randomised controlled trials (RCTs). While all countries agreed on the need to meet the strict definition of severe asthma, the required minimal exacerbation rate in the past year was highly variable, ranging from 1 to 4, the greatest proportion of countries choosing 2. Arguably, doctors should strive to prevent all exacerbations, but the financial realities make this a difficult objective to achieve. We would argue that duration and severity of an exacerbation should also be included in the decision-making process. Omalizumab and anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-4/IL-13 biologics all required specific laboratory biomarkers, namely total serum IgE concentration and blood eosinophil counts, respectively. While these biomarkers are used in most European countries, there were marked differences in threshold values, for unclear reasons that need elucidation. Of note, in two countries, it was possible to bypass the blood eosinophil threshold and offer anti-IL-5 therapy if sputum eosinophil counts were high. In three countries, dupilumab was offered to patients on OCS for >50% of the year irrespective of immunological T2 profile. Lung function has long been a measure of treatment efficacy but has often been considered as the secondary end-point in severe asthma clinical trials studying biologics. In keeping with this established concept, FEV1 was mostly used as an inclusion criterion for omalizumab (in 50% of countries) but was only used in 9% of countries for dupilumab. This is paradoxical given that dupilumab was found to be more effective than other biologics at improving FEV1 [10]. Furthermore, considerable improvement in FEV1 has been reported with benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma and nasal polyposis [11]. Arguably, requiring an already altered FEV1 as inclusion criteria might not be suitable as it may limit access to the medication in patients who might have benefited from prevention of remodelling and subsequent decrease in lung function. Indeed, there are some data on long-term follow-up suggesting that biologics may prevent decline in lung function [12–14]. Finally, there was an obligation in some countries to prove non-smoking status or treatment adherence, or completion of a questionnaire of quality of life. Concerning exposure to tobacco, there is an exclusion of smokers or sometimes significant ex-smokers in severe asthma clinical trials, which may explain why some countries also apply this restriction when prescribing biologics. While there are no RCTs including smokers, a recent work focusing on ex-smokers suggested that a significant smoking history did not preclude effectiveness of anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5R therapy regarding exacerbations and asthma control [15]. In addition, a recent real-life study has indicated that anti-IL-5 was able to attenuate lung function decline in severe eosinophilic asthmatic individuals independently of smoking status [13]. While we recognise the need to encourage smoking cessation, we question the morality of withholding treatment in people who are unable to quit. In addition, it is worth highlighting that most countries do not need strict proof of compliance regarding background ICS treatment, which is surprising as it is known that non-adherence is an important cause of uncontrolled asthma.

An important but very contentious point for treatment with biologics is its effectiveness evaluation. GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) guidelines recommend a 4-month trial period before assessing effectiveness in respect of asthma control [1]. A recent panel of European experts recommended a traffic lights assessment system that offers three decision pathways: 1) continue treatment in super-responders; 2) stop if there is no evidence of response; and 3) extend for 1 year in intermediate responders in case the response is delayed [16]. Our survey noted divergence between countries in timing between first administration of biologics and first assessment of effectiveness. While in most countries evaluation was done at 4–6 months (depending on biologic), others only assessed at 1 year, and some allowed immediate access to an unlimited reimbursement without strict evaluation of effectiveness. The most appropriate timing of effectiveness assessment needs to be addressed, as early evaluation might not show clinically relevant reduction in exacerbations, whereas late evaluation might delay any treatment discontinuation or switch between biologics. Similarly, we noted large differences in the benchmarks used to assess effectiveness. Indeed, many countries did not take into account efficacy criteria obtained in severe asthma monoclonal antibodies RCTs. In an attempt to reach a consensus on optimal assessment, we asked asthma experts to rank the clinical efficacy criteria used in those RCTs. Not surprisingly, the reduction in exacerbation rate and the burden of maintenance OCS were rated as the most important, followed by improvements in asthma control and quality of life. Of note, the least important criterion was improvement of 5% predicted in FEV1, although this level of improvement has been achieved in most RCTs and real-life studies with biologics [17, 18]. Overall, there is yet no general consensus about criteria defining significant response to treatment with biologics, even if this is an active area of discussion [19].

The question of switching or combining biologics emerges when asthma remains uncontrolled despite the biologic. There are reports indicating that switching from anti-IgE to anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5R may improve asthma control [20–22]. Our survey showed that it is easy in most countries to switch between biologics if standard inclusion criteria for the alternative biologic are met. Combining biologics in cases of uncontrolled asthma is a plausible option since biologics act through different mechanisms. However, combination therapy has not been studied extensively so its efficacy–safety profile is not established. Indeed, relevant data on this subject are mainly derived from case reports [23, 24]. This is not surprising, as our survey showed that combining biotherapies is not authorised in 16 of 28 countries, while 12 countries have no formal restrictions but also have no experience. A recent study has shown that combining dupilumab with an anti-IL-33 did not bring further advantage [25]. Formal studies are necessary to define the benefit–risk balance of combining asthma biologics that target different molecular pathways [26].

Despite known side-effects, OCS treatment remains a cornerstone in the management of a substantial proportion of severe asthmatics. Some biologics have been shown to have a corticosteroid-sparing potential, such as mepolizumab [27], benralizumab [28] or dupilumab [29]. Our survey revealed that corticosteroid-related side-effects were assessed in 70% of countries, which is quite considerable, but this leaves almost one third of patients without appropriate assessment. The methods used to evaluate OCS side-effects also varied, with cortisol blood levels and clinical evaluation being most frequently used. There are accurate tools, including the Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index [30], that can be used. Standardisation is essential for patient-centred care to improve evaluation of corticosteroid-induced toxicity, as it might lead to a more rapid identification of side-effects on the one hand, and a better structured and consistent approach to corticosteroid weaning on the other hand.

This survey has several limitations. Firstly, it did not take into account patient engagement. As a patient-centred CRC, we recognise the importance of patients’ perspectives of effectiveness, but patient involvement in SHARP in some countries is still lacking either completely or is suboptimal. Thus, patient engagement to define the inclusion and exclusion criteria would have been insufficiently representative of all the European countries. To follow-up on this study, an additional European collaborative and patient-centred survey led by the SHARP/ERS expert group, involving patient organisations and networks, is needed. Secondly, our study being essentially descriptive, it has not investigated how between-nation differences in inclusion or continuation criteria may result in disparities in real-life effectiveness and patient care. Thirdly, the study has not assessed the impact of corticosteroid monitoring on patient outcomes, particularly on the weaning of steroids, which is one of the fundamental aims when starting biologics in patients receiving maintenance OCS.

Conclusion

Our survey has demonstrated some similarities but also great disparities in the use of biologics for severe asthma, which need to be understood better and remedied to achieve best possible practice for patients. Harmonising the use of biologics is also of interest for reproducible clinical practice and effective comparison of treatments in longitudinal and multicentric real-life studies. While harmonisation of practice across Europe requires further analysis, we can now, as members of a strongly patient-centred clinical research collaboration, appeal to healthcare providers of all countries where the full complement of biologics is not available to explore ways of improving availability. From a patient and public health perspective, we also strongly recommend that formal criteria for effectiveness assessment should be established.

Acknowledgements

The SHARP CRC would like to acknowledge the support and expertise of the following individuals without whom the study would not have been possible: Emmanuelle Berret (European Respiratory Society, Lausanne, Switzerland) and Daniel Doberer (Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria).

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: L.G. Heaney reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: academic lead for the UK MRC Consortium for Stratified Medicine in Severe Asthma (industrial pharma partners: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Janssen, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim); project grant funding from Medimmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline; travel funding support to international respiratory meetings received from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva and GlaxoSmithKline; participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi, Teva, Theravance and Vectura.

  • Conflict of interest: B. Dahlén reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: grant received from GSK and Novartis to support Karolinska Severe Asthma Centre; personal consulting fees received from GSK, Novartis, Teva and AstraZeneca; consulting fees, paid to the institution, received from Region Stockholm; personal honoraria received from GSK, Novartis, Teva and AstraZeneca.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Popović-Grle reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: payment for educational events from Abbot, Alkaloid, AstraZeneca, BerlinChemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medis, Novartis, Pliva-Teva, PharmaS, Providens, Salvus, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis and SwixxPharma; participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BerlinChemie Menarini, GSK, Novartis, Pliva-Teva, PharmaS, Sanofi-Aventis and SwixxPharma.

  • Conflict of interest: V. Sedlák reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: payment for presentations received from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, TEVA and Sanofi; payment for expert testimony payments received from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, TEVA and Sanofi; payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board received from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, TEVA and Sanofi.

  • Conflict of interest: L. Lehtimäki reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: fees for lectures or advisory board meetings received from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion Pharma and Sanofi; owner of shares for Ausculthing OY.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Bourdin reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: unrestricted grants received from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees received from Astra Zeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi; payment or honoraria received for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi; support for attending meetings and/or travel received from Astra Zeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Korn reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: consulting fees received from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi; payment or honoraria received for lectures and presentations from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline.

  • Conflict of interest: M.W. Butler reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: payment or honoraria received for lectures and presentations from AstraZeneca, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline; support received for international meeting attendance received from AstraZeneca; participation on Advisory Boards for ALK Abello, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; Chair of Medical Advisory Group, board member of Asthma Society of Ireland, Ireland member of GINA Assembly, President of Irish Thoracic Society (2022 to present).

  • Conflict of interest: G.W. Canonica reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group for EAACI Methodology Committee, REG Vice President and SANI Steering Committee.

  • Conflict of interest: K. Beiksiene reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: payment or honoraria received for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from AstraZeneca and Berlin Chemie.

  • Conflict of interest: A. ten Brinke reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: unrestricted grants received from TEVA, GSK and AstraZeneca; consulting fees paid to the institution from GSK, Sanofi, TEVA, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; payments for lectures, paid to the institution, received from GSK, TEVA, AstraZeneca and Sanofi; participation on research advisory boards for GSK, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and TEVA; Chair of Dutch severe asthma registry RAPSODI.

  • Conflict of interest: P. Kuna reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: personal fees received for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie Menarini, Alvogen, Glenmark, Novartis, GSK, Chiesi, Polpharma and Teva.

  • Conflict of interest: C. Chaves Loureiro reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: Consulting fees received from AstraZeneca and GSK. Payment for r presentations and speakers bureaus received from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Support for attending meetings received from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Nippon, Sanofi-Aventis, Tecnifarma and VitalAire. Participation on Advisory Boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis.

  • Conflict of interest: Z. Lazic reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: payment or honoraria for educational events received from AstraZeneca, BerlinChemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, PharmaS, Providens, Sandoz and Actavis-Teva Serbia; participation on Advisory Boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BerlinChemie Menarini, Novartis and Actavis-Teva Serbia.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Škrgat reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: honoraria received for lectures and educational events from Astra Zeneca, Pliva Teva, Berlin Chemie, Chiesi and Medis; participation on local advisory boards organized by AstraZeneca.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Leuppi reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: J. Leuppi is supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF 160072 and 185592) and by Swiss Personalised Health Network (SPHN 2018DR108); J. Leuppi has also received unrestricted grants from AstraZeneca AG Switzerland, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH Switzerland, GSK AG Switzerland, and Novartis AG Switzerland.

  • Conflict of interest: B. Gemicioglu reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: grants or contracts received from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi; payment or honoraria received for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from Novartis; support for attending meetings received from Novartis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for GlaxoSmithKline.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Bossios reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: payment or honoraria received for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from Astra Zeneca, GSK and TEVA; support for attending meetings and/or travel received from Novartis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, TEVA and Sanofi; member of the steering committee of SHARP, Secretary of Assembly 5 (Airway diseases, asthma, COPD and chronic cough), European Respiratory Society; vice-chair of Nordic Severe Asthma Network (NSAN).

  • Conflict of interest: C.M. Porsbjerg reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: grants or contracts, paid to the institution, received from AZ, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK; consulting fees received from AZ, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from AZ, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AZ, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK.

  • Conflict of interest: E.H. Bel reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: research grants received from GSK and Teva; consulting fees received from Teva, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sterna and Chiesi; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca.

  • Conflict of interest: R. Djukanovic reports the following relationships outside the submitted work: funding received for the SHARP CRC from ERS, TEVA, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi and Chiesi; consultancy fees paid to the author received from Synairgen plc, Sanofi-Genzyme Corporation and Galapagos; honorarium for lectures paid to the author received from GlaxoSmithKline, Congress of Interasma, AstraZeneca and Airways Vista, Seoul; personal shares owned for Synairgen.

  • Conflict of interest: L. Renaud reports receiving support for the present manuscript from SHARP CRC supported by GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, Chiesi and Teva. The following relationships are reported outside the submitted work: grants or contracts received from GSK, AZ and Chiesi; consulting fees received from AZ and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, received from AZ, GSK and Chiesi; patents planned, issued or pending WO 2017/050527 A1 “Method for the diagnosis of airway disease inflammatory subtype”.

  • Conflict of interest: The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

  • Support statement: The SHARP CRC has been supported by financial and other contributions from the following consortium partners: European Respiratory Society, GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development Limited, Chiesi Farmaceutici SPA, Novartis Pharma AG, Sanofi-Genzyme Corporation, and Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received June 7, 2022.
  • Accepted August 8, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. 2021. Available from: http://ginasthma.org/
  2. ↵
    1. Hekking PPW,
    2. Wener RR,
    3. Amelink M, et al.
    The prevalence of severe refractory asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015; 135: 896–902. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.08.042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Chung KF,
    2. Wenzel SE,
    3. Brozek JL, et al.
    International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 343–373. doi:10.1183/09031936.00202013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Israel E,
    2. Reddel HK
    . Severe and difficult-to-treat asthma in adults. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 965–976. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1608969
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Pavord ID,
    2. Beasley R,
    3. Agusti A, et al.
    After asthma: redefining airways diseases. Lancet 2018; 391: 350–400. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30879-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Brusselle GG,
    2. Koppelman GH
    . Biologic therapies for severe asthma. N Engl J Med 2022; 386: 157–171. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2032506
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Djukanovic R,
    2. Adcock IM,
    3. Anderson G, et al.
    The severe heterogeneous asthma research collaboration, patient-centred (SHARP) ERS clinical research collaboration: a new dawn in asthma research. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1801671. doi:10.1183/13993003.01671-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. van Bragt JJMH,
    2. Adcock IM,
    3. Bel EHD, et al.
    Characteristics and treatment regimens across ERS SHARP severe asthma registries. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901163. doi:10.1183/13993003.01163-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Porsbjerg CM,
    2. Menzies-Gow AN,
    3. Tran TN, et al.
    Global variability in administrative approval prescription criteria for biologic therapy in severe asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2022; 10: 1202–1216.e23. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2021.12.027
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Calzetta L,
    2. Matera MG,
    3. Rogliani P
    . Monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma: is it worth it? Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2019; 15: 517–520. doi:10.1080/17425255.2019.1621837
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Canonica GW,
    2. Harrison TW,
    3. Chanez P, et al.
    Benralizumab improves symptoms of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma with a diagnosis of nasal polyposis. Allergy 2022; 77: 150–161. doi:10.1111/all.14902
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Menzella F,
    2. Fontana M,
    3. Contoli M, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of omalizumab treatment over a 16-year follow-up: when a clinical trial meets real-life. J Asthma Allergy 2022; 15: 505–515. doi:10.2147/JAA.S363398
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Graff S,
    2. Brusselle G,
    3. Hanon S, et al.
    Anti-interleukin-5 therapy is associated with attenuated lung function decline in severe eosinophilic asthma patients from the Belgian severe asthma registry. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2022; 10: 467–477. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2021.09.023
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Wechsler ME,
    2. Ford LB,
    3. Maspero JF, et al.
    Long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma (TRAVERSE): an open-label extension study. Lancet Respir Med 2022; 10: 11–25. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00322-2
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Hansen S,
    2. Ulrik C,
    3. Hilberg O, et al.
    The effectiveness of anti-IL5 biologics is comparable in previous-smokers and never-smokers with severe asthma. Eur Respir J 2021; 58: Suppl. 65, PA3742.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Buhl R,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Bjermer L, et al.
    Severe eosinophilic asthma: a roadmap to consensus. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1700634. doi:10.1183/13993003.00634-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Frix AN,
    2. Schleich F,
    3. Paulus V, et al.
    Effectiveness of omalizumab on patient reported outcomes, lung function, and inflammatory markers in severe allergic asthma. Biochem Pharmacol 2020; 179: 113944. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113944
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Schleich F,
    2. Graff S,
    3. Nekoee H, et al.
    Real-world experience with mepolizumab: does it deliver what it has promised? Clin Exp Allergy 2020; 50: 687–695. doi:10.1111/cea.13601
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Upham JW,
    2. Le Lievre C,
    3. Jackson DJ, et al.
    Defining a severe asthma super-responder: findings from a Delphi process. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021; 9: 3997–4004. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2021.06.041
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Pelaia C,
    2. Crimi C,
    3. Nolasco S, et al.
    Switch from omalizumab to benralizumab in allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: a real-life experience from southern Italy. Biomedicines 2021; 9: 1822. doi:10.3390/biomedicines9121822
    OpenUrl
    1. Carpagnano GE,
    2. Pelaia C,
    3. D'Amato M, et al.
    Switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab: real-life experience from Southern Italy. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2020; 14: 175346662092923. doi:10.1177/1753466620929231
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Numata T,
    2. Araya J,
    3. Miyagawa H, et al.
    Effectiveness of switching biologics for severe asthma patients in Japan: a single-center retrospective study. J Asthma Allergy 2021; 14: 609–618. doi:10.2147/JAA.S311975
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Ortega G,
    2. Tongchinsub P,
    3. Carr T
    . Combination biologic therapy for severe persistent asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2019; 123: 309–311. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2019.06.013
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Dedaj R,
    2. Unsel L
    . Case study: a combination of Mepolizumab and Omaluzimab injections for severe asthma. J Asthma 2019; 56: 473–474. doi:10.1080/02770903.2018.1471706
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Wechsler ME,
    2. Ruddy MK,
    3. Pavord ID, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of Itepekimab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 1656–1668. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2024257
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Menzies-Gow AN,
    2. McBrien C,
    3. Unni B, et al.
    Real world biologic use and switch patterns in severe asthma: data from the international severe asthma registry and the US CHRONICLE study. J Asthma Allergy 2022; 15: 63–78. doi:10.2147/JAA.S328653
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Bel EH,
    2. Wenzel SE,
    3. Thompson PJ, et al.
    Oral glucocorticoid-sparing effect of Mepolizumab in eosinophilic asthma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1189–1197. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1403291
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Nair P,
    2. Wenzel S,
    3. Rabe KF, et al.
    Oral glucocorticoid–sparing effect of benralizumab in severe asthma. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 2448–2458. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1703501
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Rabe KF,
    2. Nair P,
    3. Brusselle G, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in glucocorticoid-dependent severe asthma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2475–2485. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1804093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. McDowell PJ,
    2. Stone JH,
    3. Zhang Y, et al.
    Quantification of glucocorticoid-associated morbidity in severe asthma using the glucocorticoid toxicity index. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021; 9: 365–372. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.08.032
    OpenUrl
    1. uropean Medicines Agency.
    1. E
    uropean Medicines Agency. XOLAIR (omalizumab). www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/xolair
    1. Food and Drug Administration.
    XOLAIR (omalizumab) for injection, for subcutaneous use. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/103976s5225lbl.pdf
    1. European Medicines Agency.
    NUCALA (mepolizumab). www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/nucala
    1. Food and Drug Administration.
    NUCALA (mepolizumab) for injection, for subcutaneous use. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2015/125526Orig1s000Lbl.pdf
    1. European Medicines Agency.
    CINQAERO (reslizumab). www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/overview/cinqaero-epar-summary-public_en.pdf
    1. Food and Drug Administration.
    CINQAIR (reslizumab) injection, for intravenous use. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/761033lbl.pdf
    1. European Medicines Agency.
    FASENRA (benralizumab). An overview of Fasenra and why it is authorized in the EU. www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/overview/fasenra-epar-medicine-overview_en.pdf
    1. Food and Drug Administration.
    FASENRA (benralizumab) injection, for subcutaneous use. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/761070s000lbl.pdf
    1. Food and Drug Administration.
    DUPIXENT (dupilumab) injection, for subcutaneous use. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/761055s007lbl.pdf
    1. European Medicines Agency.
    DUPIXENT (dupilumab). www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/dupixent-epar-product-information_en.pdf
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 8 Issue 4 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 8 (4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study
Anne-Noelle Frix, Liam G. Heaney, Barbro Dahlén, Florin Mihaltan, Svetlana Sergejeva, Sanja Popović-Grle, Vratislav Sedlak, Lauri Lehtimäki, Arnaud Bourdin, Stephanie Korn, Eleftherios Zervas, Zsuzsanna Csoma, Dora Lúðvíksdóttir, Marcus Butler, Giorgio Walter Canonica, Ineta Grisle, Kristina Bieksiene, Anneke Ten Brinke, Piotr Kuna, Claudia Chaves Loureiro, Natalia M. Nenasheva, Zorica Lazic, Sabina Škrgat, David Ramos-Barbon, Joerg Leuppi, Bilun Gemicioglu, Apostolos Bossios, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, Elisabeth H. Bel, Ratko Djukanovic, Renaud Louis
ERJ Open Research Oct 2022, 8 (4) 00273-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00273-2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Heterogeneity in the use of biologics for severe asthma in Europe: a SHARP ERS study
Anne-Noelle Frix, Liam G. Heaney, Barbro Dahlén, Florin Mihaltan, Svetlana Sergejeva, Sanja Popović-Grle, Vratislav Sedlak, Lauri Lehtimäki, Arnaud Bourdin, Stephanie Korn, Eleftherios Zervas, Zsuzsanna Csoma, Dora Lúðvíksdóttir, Marcus Butler, Giorgio Walter Canonica, Ineta Grisle, Kristina Bieksiene, Anneke Ten Brinke, Piotr Kuna, Claudia Chaves Loureiro, Natalia M. Nenasheva, Zorica Lazic, Sabina Škrgat, David Ramos-Barbon, Joerg Leuppi, Bilun Gemicioglu, Apostolos Bossios, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, Elisabeth H. Bel, Ratko Djukanovic, Renaud Louis
ERJ Open Research Oct 2022, 8 (4) 00273-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00273-2022
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Asthma and allergy
  • Pulmonary pharmacology and therapeutics
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original research articles

  • Volatile metabolites of pulmonary oxidative injury
  • Assessment of mycobacterial burden in NTM treatment
  • Anti-IL-5 antibody therapy and exercise testing
Show more Original research articles

Asthma

  • Distribution of type 2 biomarkers and association with severity, clinical characteristics and comorbidities in the BREATHE real-life asthma population
  • Anti-IL-5 antibody therapy and exercise testing
  • Combining PROMs, spirometry and FENO for asthma diagnosis
Show more Asthma

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society