Asthma

"The eye of the hurricane" is how adolescent asthma is often described, according to Dr Benjamin Gaston, of Indiana University School of Medicine, given the disease is more prevalent in children but more severe in patients whose asthma continues on into adulthood.

In adolescence, increasingly severe disease may find itself on a collision course with nonadherence, which remains a challenge at this age. Because adolescents adapt easily to telemedicine and mobile apps, pandemic-related disruptions to in-person appointments may not be a barrier for this group and indeed may be beneficial.

The 2019 GINA and 2020 NHLBI guidelines offer promising new approaches, including use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with formoterol at the onset of symptoms. ICS with formoterol as rescue and long-acting monoclonal antibody injections have proven effective for some adolescents but are no substitute for daily prevention therapy, an important standard of care.

Obstacles remain, including the high cost of both ICS-formoterol and the new biologics, as well as the inconvenient packaging of formoterol, which is not included in most ICS-LABA combinations on the market.

Studies such as the NHLBI PrecISE trial are investigating predictive biomarkers that could lead to highly individualized treatments for adolescent patients with this heterogeneous disease.

--

Benjamin Gaston, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine; Vice Chair for Translational Research, Department of Pediatrics, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, Indiana. 
Benjamin Gaston, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

"The eye of the hurricane" is how adolescent asthma is often described, according to Dr Benjamin Gaston, of Indiana University School of Medicine, given the disease is more prevalent in children but more severe in patients whose asthma continues on into adulthood.

In adolescence, increasingly severe disease may find itself on a collision course with nonadherence, which remains a challenge at this age. Because adolescents adapt easily to telemedicine and mobile apps, pandemic-related disruptions to in-person appointments may not be a barrier for this group and indeed may be beneficial.

The 2019 GINA and 2020 NHLBI guidelines offer promising new approaches, including use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with formoterol at the onset of symptoms. ICS with formoterol as rescue and long-acting monoclonal antibody injections have proven effective for some adolescents but are no substitute for daily prevention therapy, an important standard of care.

Obstacles remain, including the high cost of both ICS-formoterol and the new biologics, as well as the inconvenient packaging of formoterol, which is not included in most ICS-LABA combinations on the market.

Studies such as the NHLBI PrecISE trial are investigating predictive biomarkers that could lead to highly individualized treatments for adolescent patients with this heterogeneous disease.

--

Benjamin Gaston, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine; Vice Chair for Translational Research, Department of Pediatrics, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, Indiana. 
Benjamin Gaston, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

"The eye of the hurricane" is how adolescent asthma is often described, according to Dr Benjamin Gaston, of Indiana University School of Medicine, given the disease is more prevalent in children but more severe in patients whose asthma continues on into adulthood.

In adolescence, increasingly severe disease may find itself on a collision course with nonadherence, which remains a challenge at this age. Because adolescents adapt easily to telemedicine and mobile apps, pandemic-related disruptions to in-person appointments may not be a barrier for this group and indeed may be beneficial.

The 2019 GINA and 2020 NHLBI guidelines offer promising new approaches, including use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with formoterol at the onset of symptoms. ICS with formoterol as rescue and long-acting monoclonal antibody injections have proven effective for some adolescents but are no substitute for daily prevention therapy, an important standard of care.

Obstacles remain, including the high cost of both ICS-formoterol and the new biologics, as well as the inconvenient packaging of formoterol, which is not included in most ICS-LABA combinations on the market.

Studies such as the NHLBI PrecISE trial are investigating predictive biomarkers that could lead to highly individualized treatments for adolescent patients with this heterogeneous disease.

--

Benjamin Gaston, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine; Vice Chair for Translational Research, Department of Pediatrics, Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, Indiana. 
Benjamin Gaston, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The development and worsening of overlapping asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be affected by pollutants found in rural and urban environments, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“Urban-rural-occupational air pollutants or respiratory sensitizers impact asthma and the asthma-COPD overlap features,” Jill A. Poole, MD, division chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in her presentation.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) first outlined a syndrome in 2015 described as “persistent airflow limitation with several features usually associated with asthma and several features usually associated with COPD” and called asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. In 2017, a joint American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop outlined knowledge gaps about asthma-COPD overlap, noting it “does not represent a single discrete disease entity.”

“This is not a single disease and should be thought of as being heterogeneous and used as a descriptive label for patients commonly seen in clinical practice,” Dr. Poole said. “Both asthma and COPD definitions are not mutually exclusive because each disease includes several phenotypes with different underlining mechanisms.” An example of how asthma-COPD overlap might present is through a patient with allergic asthma who has a history of smoking who develops airflow obstruction that isn’t fully reversible, or a patient with COPD “with high reversible airflow, obstruction, type 2 inflammation, and perhaps the presence of peripheral blood eosinophils or sputum eosinophils.”

A patient’s interaction with urban, rural, and occupational environments may additionally impact their disease, Dr. Poole explained. “The environmental factors of an urban versus rural environment may not be necessarily mutually exclusive,” she said. “It’s also important to recognize occupational exposures that can be both seen in an urban or rural environment [can] contribute to asthma-COPD overlap.”

In a study of 6,040 men and women with asthma living in Canada, 630 (10.4%) had asthma-COPD overlap, with increased air pollution raising the likelihood of developing asthma-COPD overlap (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-4.78). These people experienced later onset asthma, increased emergency department visits before a diagnosis of COPD, and increased mortality. Another study in Canada of women from Ontario in the Breast Cancer Screening Study found 1,705 of 4,051 women with asthma also had COPD. While air pollution did not increase the risk of developing asthma-COPD overlap, there was an association between body mass index, low level of education, living in a rural area, and smoking status.

Among farmers in rural areas, “it has been recognized that there is something called the asthma-like syndrome that’s been reported in adult farming communities,” Dr. Poole said, which includes “some degree of airflow obstruction and reversibility” that can be worsened by smoking and could be an overlap of asthma and COPD. Farmers can also experience asthma exacerbations while working, and “livestock farmers appear more at risk of developing [chronic bronchitis and/or COPD] than do the crop farmers,” she noted.

Occupational environments outside of agriculture exposure can cause incident asthma, with high-molecular-weight antigens such as flour cereal, animal dander, latex, psyllium, crab processing products, and enzymes as well as low-molecular-weight antigens such as isocyanates, woods, antibiotics, glues, epoxies colophony products, and dyes presenting a risk. In food processing, main allergen sources can include raw and processed animal and plant products, additives and preservatives, contaminants from microbes or insects, inhaled dust particles or aerosols, which can be “IgE mediated, mixed IgE-mediated and non-lgE mediated.”

While some studies have been conducted on the prevalence of work-related asthma and asthma-COPD overlap, “in general, the prevalence and clinical features have been scarcely investigated,” Dr. Poole said. One survey of 23,137 patients found 52.9% of adults with work-related asthma also had COPD, compared with 25.6% of participants whose asthma was not work related.

To prevent asthma-COPD overlap, Dr. Poole recommended tobacco cessation, reducing indoor biomass fuel use, medical surveillance programs such as preplacement questionnaires, and considering “reducing exposure to the respiratory sensitizers with ideally monitoring the levels to keep the levels below the permissible limits.”

Dr. Poole noted there is currently no unique treatment for asthma-COPD overlap, but it is “important to fully characterize and phenotype your individual patients, looking for eosinophilia or seeing if they have more neutrophil features and whether or not the allergy features are prevalent and can be treated,” she said. “[A]wareness is really required such that counseling is encouraged for prevention and or interventional strategies as we move forward.”

For patients with features of both asthma and COPD where there is a high likelihood of asthma, treat the disease as if it were asthma, Dr. Poole said, but clinicians should follow GINA GOLD COPD treatment recommendations, adding on long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) when needed, but avoiding LABAs and/or LAMAs without use of inhaled corticosteroids, and avoiding oral corticosteroids entirely. Clinicians should be reviewing the treatments of patients with asthma and COPD features “every 2-3 months to see how their response is to it, and what additional therapies could be used,” she said.

Dr. Poole reports receiving grant support from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

The development and worsening of overlapping asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be affected by pollutants found in rural and urban environments, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“Urban-rural-occupational air pollutants or respiratory sensitizers impact asthma and the asthma-COPD overlap features,” Jill A. Poole, MD, division chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in her presentation.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) first outlined a syndrome in 2015 described as “persistent airflow limitation with several features usually associated with asthma and several features usually associated with COPD” and called asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. In 2017, a joint American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop outlined knowledge gaps about asthma-COPD overlap, noting it “does not represent a single discrete disease entity.”

“This is not a single disease and should be thought of as being heterogeneous and used as a descriptive label for patients commonly seen in clinical practice,” Dr. Poole said. “Both asthma and COPD definitions are not mutually exclusive because each disease includes several phenotypes with different underlining mechanisms.” An example of how asthma-COPD overlap might present is through a patient with allergic asthma who has a history of smoking who develops airflow obstruction that isn’t fully reversible, or a patient with COPD “with high reversible airflow, obstruction, type 2 inflammation, and perhaps the presence of peripheral blood eosinophils or sputum eosinophils.”

A patient’s interaction with urban, rural, and occupational environments may additionally impact their disease, Dr. Poole explained. “The environmental factors of an urban versus rural environment may not be necessarily mutually exclusive,” she said. “It’s also important to recognize occupational exposures that can be both seen in an urban or rural environment [can] contribute to asthma-COPD overlap.”

In a study of 6,040 men and women with asthma living in Canada, 630 (10.4%) had asthma-COPD overlap, with increased air pollution raising the likelihood of developing asthma-COPD overlap (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-4.78). These people experienced later onset asthma, increased emergency department visits before a diagnosis of COPD, and increased mortality. Another study in Canada of women from Ontario in the Breast Cancer Screening Study found 1,705 of 4,051 women with asthma also had COPD. While air pollution did not increase the risk of developing asthma-COPD overlap, there was an association between body mass index, low level of education, living in a rural area, and smoking status.

Among farmers in rural areas, “it has been recognized that there is something called the asthma-like syndrome that’s been reported in adult farming communities,” Dr. Poole said, which includes “some degree of airflow obstruction and reversibility” that can be worsened by smoking and could be an overlap of asthma and COPD. Farmers can also experience asthma exacerbations while working, and “livestock farmers appear more at risk of developing [chronic bronchitis and/or COPD] than do the crop farmers,” she noted.

Occupational environments outside of agriculture exposure can cause incident asthma, with high-molecular-weight antigens such as flour cereal, animal dander, latex, psyllium, crab processing products, and enzymes as well as low-molecular-weight antigens such as isocyanates, woods, antibiotics, glues, epoxies colophony products, and dyes presenting a risk. In food processing, main allergen sources can include raw and processed animal and plant products, additives and preservatives, contaminants from microbes or insects, inhaled dust particles or aerosols, which can be “IgE mediated, mixed IgE-mediated and non-lgE mediated.”

While some studies have been conducted on the prevalence of work-related asthma and asthma-COPD overlap, “in general, the prevalence and clinical features have been scarcely investigated,” Dr. Poole said. One survey of 23,137 patients found 52.9% of adults with work-related asthma also had COPD, compared with 25.6% of participants whose asthma was not work related.

To prevent asthma-COPD overlap, Dr. Poole recommended tobacco cessation, reducing indoor biomass fuel use, medical surveillance programs such as preplacement questionnaires, and considering “reducing exposure to the respiratory sensitizers with ideally monitoring the levels to keep the levels below the permissible limits.”

Dr. Poole noted there is currently no unique treatment for asthma-COPD overlap, but it is “important to fully characterize and phenotype your individual patients, looking for eosinophilia or seeing if they have more neutrophil features and whether or not the allergy features are prevalent and can be treated,” she said. “[A]wareness is really required such that counseling is encouraged for prevention and or interventional strategies as we move forward.”

For patients with features of both asthma and COPD where there is a high likelihood of asthma, treat the disease as if it were asthma, Dr. Poole said, but clinicians should follow GINA GOLD COPD treatment recommendations, adding on long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) when needed, but avoiding LABAs and/or LAMAs without use of inhaled corticosteroids, and avoiding oral corticosteroids entirely. Clinicians should be reviewing the treatments of patients with asthma and COPD features “every 2-3 months to see how their response is to it, and what additional therapies could be used,” she said.

Dr. Poole reports receiving grant support from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

The development and worsening of overlapping asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be affected by pollutants found in rural and urban environments, according to a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“Urban-rural-occupational air pollutants or respiratory sensitizers impact asthma and the asthma-COPD overlap features,” Jill A. Poole, MD, division chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in her presentation.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) first outlined a syndrome in 2015 described as “persistent airflow limitation with several features usually associated with asthma and several features usually associated with COPD” and called asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. In 2017, a joint American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop outlined knowledge gaps about asthma-COPD overlap, noting it “does not represent a single discrete disease entity.”

“This is not a single disease and should be thought of as being heterogeneous and used as a descriptive label for patients commonly seen in clinical practice,” Dr. Poole said. “Both asthma and COPD definitions are not mutually exclusive because each disease includes several phenotypes with different underlining mechanisms.” An example of how asthma-COPD overlap might present is through a patient with allergic asthma who has a history of smoking who develops airflow obstruction that isn’t fully reversible, or a patient with COPD “with high reversible airflow, obstruction, type 2 inflammation, and perhaps the presence of peripheral blood eosinophils or sputum eosinophils.”

A patient’s interaction with urban, rural, and occupational environments may additionally impact their disease, Dr. Poole explained. “The environmental factors of an urban versus rural environment may not be necessarily mutually exclusive,” she said. “It’s also important to recognize occupational exposures that can be both seen in an urban or rural environment [can] contribute to asthma-COPD overlap.”

In a study of 6,040 men and women with asthma living in Canada, 630 (10.4%) had asthma-COPD overlap, with increased air pollution raising the likelihood of developing asthma-COPD overlap (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-4.78). These people experienced later onset asthma, increased emergency department visits before a diagnosis of COPD, and increased mortality. Another study in Canada of women from Ontario in the Breast Cancer Screening Study found 1,705 of 4,051 women with asthma also had COPD. While air pollution did not increase the risk of developing asthma-COPD overlap, there was an association between body mass index, low level of education, living in a rural area, and smoking status.

Among farmers in rural areas, “it has been recognized that there is something called the asthma-like syndrome that’s been reported in adult farming communities,” Dr. Poole said, which includes “some degree of airflow obstruction and reversibility” that can be worsened by smoking and could be an overlap of asthma and COPD. Farmers can also experience asthma exacerbations while working, and “livestock farmers appear more at risk of developing [chronic bronchitis and/or COPD] than do the crop farmers,” she noted.

Occupational environments outside of agriculture exposure can cause incident asthma, with high-molecular-weight antigens such as flour cereal, animal dander, latex, psyllium, crab processing products, and enzymes as well as low-molecular-weight antigens such as isocyanates, woods, antibiotics, glues, epoxies colophony products, and dyes presenting a risk. In food processing, main allergen sources can include raw and processed animal and plant products, additives and preservatives, contaminants from microbes or insects, inhaled dust particles or aerosols, which can be “IgE mediated, mixed IgE-mediated and non-lgE mediated.”

While some studies have been conducted on the prevalence of work-related asthma and asthma-COPD overlap, “in general, the prevalence and clinical features have been scarcely investigated,” Dr. Poole said. One survey of 23,137 patients found 52.9% of adults with work-related asthma also had COPD, compared with 25.6% of participants whose asthma was not work related.

To prevent asthma-COPD overlap, Dr. Poole recommended tobacco cessation, reducing indoor biomass fuel use, medical surveillance programs such as preplacement questionnaires, and considering “reducing exposure to the respiratory sensitizers with ideally monitoring the levels to keep the levels below the permissible limits.”

Dr. Poole noted there is currently no unique treatment for asthma-COPD overlap, but it is “important to fully characterize and phenotype your individual patients, looking for eosinophilia or seeing if they have more neutrophil features and whether or not the allergy features are prevalent and can be treated,” she said. “[A]wareness is really required such that counseling is encouraged for prevention and or interventional strategies as we move forward.”

For patients with features of both asthma and COPD where there is a high likelihood of asthma, treat the disease as if it were asthma, Dr. Poole said, but clinicians should follow GINA GOLD COPD treatment recommendations, adding on long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) when needed, but avoiding LABAs and/or LAMAs without use of inhaled corticosteroids, and avoiding oral corticosteroids entirely. Clinicians should be reviewing the treatments of patients with asthma and COPD features “every 2-3 months to see how their response is to it, and what additional therapies could be used,” she said.

Dr. Poole reports receiving grant support from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Central States Center for Agricultural Safety and Health at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 37-year-old woman with moderate persistent asthma, controlled on the ICS fluticasone (110 μg twice a day) presents to you for an annual exam. She uses her rescue albuterol inhaler a few times per month. Her last exacerbation was 2 years ago. She has never smoked. She is concerned about continuing to take an ICS every day. What alternative regimen would you recommend for this patient?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, asthma affected 24.7 million children and adults in the United States in 2018, accounting for 9.8 million physician visits and 1.6 million emergency department (ED) visits.² The National Institutes of Health (NIH) asthma care guidelines, updated in 2020, recommend a SABA prn as step 1 for intermittent asthma, along with nonpharmacologic management.³ Once a patient has persistent asthma, treatment escalation to step 2 calls for use of daily maintenance inhalers as the preferred treatment option.³

However, the 2020 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) warns that an as-needed SABA does not protect patients from severe exacerbations, and regular use of a SABA alone (> 3 inhalers/year) can increase the risk of exacerbations.⁴ A meta-analysis and systematic review from 2018 showed that using an ICS/LABA—scheduled and prn for rescue—had lower risk of asthma exacerbations compared with scheduled ICS/LABA with SABA prn for rescue in patients with ­moderate-to-severe persistent asthma.⁵ Interestingly, the updated 2020 NIH guidelines have adopted this strategy. SABA use prn is no longer recommended for rescue in mild and moderate persistent asthma, and the guidelines now suggest that ICS/LABA be used as rescue in addition to daily medication.³

Although evidence has been mounting for adding the as-needed ICS/LABA for rescue in patients on daily medication, the mainstay has been to provide a SABA prn for rescue use.⁵ Confusing matters more, evidence is emerging that as-needed ICS/LABA for rescue alone in certain patients is safe and effective. The randomized controlled Novel START study, an open-label, parallel-group study, compared ICS/LABA prn vs scheduled ICS with SABA prn vs SABA alone prn in adult patients with intermittent or mild persistent asthma.⁶ ICS/LABA prn prevented more exacerbations and provided better daily control than as-needed SABA alone.⁶ In addition, ICS/LABA as needed resulted in fewer severe exacerbations but potentially poorer daily control than ICS with SABA as needed.⁶

The PRACTICAL study investigated treatment of patients with intermittent, mild persistent, and moderate persistent asthma.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

ICS/LABA prn reduced risk of severe exacerbations

The randomized controlled PRACTICAL study was a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group, superiority trial in New Zealand that compared as-needed ICS/LABA (n = 437) to scheduled ICS plus as-needed SABA (n = 448). Patients were 18 to 75 years old, with a diagnosis of asthma. Applying NIH guideline definitions, these patients would fall into intermittent, mild persistent, or moderate persistent asthma categories, and were on either as-needed SABA alone or a scheduled low- to moderate-dose ICS plus an as-needed SABA in the previous 12 weeks.

Patients on an as-needed SABA prerandomization had to have at least 1 of the following: (1) asthma symptoms or need for a SABA at least twice in the past 4 weeks; (2) at least 1 nighttime awakening due to asthma in the past 4 weeks; or (3) a severe exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids in the past year. Patients on scheduled ICS plus SABA prn prerandomization were required to have either: (1) low or moderate ICS dosing with partly or well-controlled asthma; or (2) if uncontrolled, poor inhaler technique or adherence.

Continue to: Patients in the ICS/LABA group...

Patients in the ICS/LABA group were given budesonide 200 µg/formoterol 6 µg, 1 puff prn, and patients in the ICS plus as-needed SABA group were given budesonide 200 µg, 1 puff twice daily, and terbutaline 250 µg, 2 puffs prn. All patients received an asthma action plan that provided guidance on when to seek medical care if asthma worsened, as well as a log to note urgent medical visits and use of systemic corticosteroids. A subset of patients had adherence and dosing monitored by electronic inhaler usage monitors. Patients were seen at 0, 4, 16, 28, 40, and 52 weeks.

Outcomes. The primary outcome was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year, defined as treatment with oral corticosteroids for ≥ 3 days or ED visit or hospital admission requiring systemic corticosteroids. Among the secondary outcomes were number of moderate and severe exacerbations per patient per year (defined as an unplanned medical visit: primary care, ED, hospital admission, and any duration of steroids); time to first severe exacerbation; assessment with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5); adverse outcomes; and quantity of ICS used (analysis done only for the subset with electronic inhaler monitoring).

This study represents a compelling, real-world look at emerging asthma recommendations.

ACQ-5 takes the mean of 5 questions assessing asthma control in the previous week, with each question ranging from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (maximum impairment). The statistician was blinded to the primary outcome.

Results. The rate of severe exacerbations per patient per year was 0.119 in the as-needed ICS/LABA group vs 0.172 in the scheduled ICS plus as-needed SABA group (relative rate [RR] = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48–1.00). Time to first severe asthma exacerbation was longer in the as-needed ICS/LABA group (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40–0.91). The rate of moderate and severe exacerbations per patient per year was lower in the as-needed ICS/LABA group: 0.165 vs 0.237 (RR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51–0.95).

ACQ-5 scores were similar at all time points (mean difference = 0.07; 95% CI, –0.03 to 0.17). Adverse events were similar between groups (most commonly nasopharyngitis in both groups). Less ICS was used in the ICS/LABA group (difference = –126.5 µg per day; 95% CI, –171.0 to –81.9).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Study lends support to recent recommendations

This study represents a compelling, real-world look at emerging asthma recommendations. This was the first comprehensive study to show that as-needed ICS/LABA therapy prevents more moderate and severe exacerbations and lengthens the time to first severe exacerbation, compared with scheduled ICS plus SABA prn in intermittent, mild persistent, or moderate persistent asthma. These data have been incorporated into the GINA guidelines, which recommend ICS/LABA prn for step 2.

CAVEATS

Potential bias in study design

The LABA used in this study was formoterol, which has a quicker onset than other LABAs. It is likely that not all LABAs can be used the same way, and both the NIH and GINA guidelines call it out specifically. Additionally, the study’s open-label design can introduce bias but may be the only way to simulate the real-world actions of our patients. Prior studies used placebo inhalers to keep participants and providers blinded but then could not capitalize on the behavior of using only an inhaler prn (as with the ICS/LABA of this study). Finally, there is discordance between the NIH and GINA asthma guidelines on how to use these data.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Cost of ICS/LABA may limit its use

Cost is the largest barrier to implementation. Budesonide costs 6 to 10 times more than albuterol per inhaler (retail price of $281-$427 vs $17-$92, respectively).^7,8 However, cost differences are likely negated for patients already on a maintenance inhaler.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 37-year-old woman with moderate persistent asthma, controlled on the ICS fluticasone (110 μg twice a day) presents to you for an annual exam. She uses her rescue albuterol inhaler a few times per month. Her last exacerbation was 2 years ago. She has never smoked. She is concerned about continuing to take an ICS every day. What alternative regimen would you recommend for this patient?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, asthma affected 24.7 million children and adults in the United States in 2018, accounting for 9.8 million physician visits and 1.6 million emergency department (ED) visits.² The National Institutes of Health (NIH) asthma care guidelines, updated in 2020, recommend a SABA prn as step 1 for intermittent asthma, along with nonpharmacologic management.³ Once a patient has persistent asthma, treatment escalation to step 2 calls for use of daily maintenance inhalers as the preferred treatment option.³

However, the 2020 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) warns that an as-needed SABA does not protect patients from severe exacerbations, and regular use of a SABA alone (> 3 inhalers/year) can increase the risk of exacerbations.⁴ A meta-analysis and systematic review from 2018 showed that using an ICS/LABA—scheduled and prn for rescue—had lower risk of asthma exacerbations compared with scheduled ICS/LABA with SABA prn for rescue in patients with ­moderate-to-severe persistent asthma.⁵ Interestingly, the updated 2020 NIH guidelines have adopted this strategy. SABA use prn is no longer recommended for rescue in mild and moderate persistent asthma, and the guidelines now suggest that ICS/LABA be used as rescue in addition to daily medication.³

Although evidence has been mounting for adding the as-needed ICS/LABA for rescue in patients on daily medication, the mainstay has been to provide a SABA prn for rescue use.⁵ Confusing matters more, evidence is emerging that as-needed ICS/LABA for rescue alone in certain patients is safe and effective. The randomized controlled Novel START study, an open-label, parallel-group study, compared ICS/LABA prn vs scheduled ICS with SABA prn vs SABA alone prn in adult patients with intermittent or mild persistent asthma.⁶ ICS/LABA prn prevented more exacerbations and provided better daily control than as-needed SABA alone.⁶ In addition, ICS/LABA as needed resulted in fewer severe exacerbations but potentially poorer daily control than ICS with SABA as needed.⁶

The PRACTICAL study investigated treatment of patients with intermittent, mild persistent, and moderate persistent asthma.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

ICS/LABA prn reduced risk of severe exacerbations

The randomized controlled PRACTICAL study was a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group, superiority trial in New Zealand that compared as-needed ICS/LABA (n = 437) to scheduled ICS plus as-needed SABA (n = 448). Patients were 18 to 75 years old, with a diagnosis of asthma. Applying NIH guideline definitions, these patients would fall into intermittent, mild persistent, or moderate persistent asthma categories, and were on either as-needed SABA alone or a scheduled low- to moderate-dose ICS plus an as-needed SABA in the previous 12 weeks.

Patients on an as-needed SABA prerandomization had to have at least 1 of the following: (1) asthma symptoms or need for a SABA at least twice in the past 4 weeks; (2) at least 1 nighttime awakening due to asthma in the past 4 weeks; or (3) a severe exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids in the past year. Patients on scheduled ICS plus SABA prn prerandomization were required to have either: (1) low or moderate ICS dosing with partly or well-controlled asthma; or (2) if uncontrolled, poor inhaler technique or adherence.

Continue to: Patients in the ICS/LABA group...

Patients in the ICS/LABA group were given budesonide 200 µg/formoterol 6 µg, 1 puff prn, and patients in the ICS plus as-needed SABA group were given budesonide 200 µg, 1 puff twice daily, and terbutaline 250 µg, 2 puffs prn. All patients received an asthma action plan that provided guidance on when to seek medical care if asthma worsened, as well as a log to note urgent medical visits and use of systemic corticosteroids. A subset of patients had adherence and dosing monitored by electronic inhaler usage monitors. Patients were seen at 0, 4, 16, 28, 40, and 52 weeks.

Outcomes. The primary outcome was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year, defined as treatment with oral corticosteroids for ≥ 3 days or ED visit or hospital admission requiring systemic corticosteroids. Among the secondary outcomes were number of moderate and severe exacerbations per patient per year (defined as an unplanned medical visit: primary care, ED, hospital admission, and any duration of steroids); time to first severe exacerbation; assessment with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5); adverse outcomes; and quantity of ICS used (analysis done only for the subset with electronic inhaler monitoring).

This study represents a compelling, real-world look at emerging asthma recommendations.

ACQ-5 takes the mean of 5 questions assessing asthma control in the previous week, with each question ranging from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (maximum impairment). The statistician was blinded to the primary outcome.

Results. The rate of severe exacerbations per patient per year was 0.119 in the as-needed ICS/LABA group vs 0.172 in the scheduled ICS plus as-needed SABA group (relative rate [RR] = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48–1.00). Time to first severe asthma exacerbation was longer in the as-needed ICS/LABA group (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40–0.91). The rate of moderate and severe exacerbations per patient per year was lower in the as-needed ICS/LABA group: 0.165 vs 0.237 (RR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51–0.95).

ACQ-5 scores were similar at all time points (mean difference = 0.07; 95% CI, –0.03 to 0.17). Adverse events were similar between groups (most commonly nasopharyngitis in both groups). Less ICS was used in the ICS/LABA group (difference = –126.5 µg per day; 95% CI, –171.0 to –81.9).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Study lends support to recent recommendations

This study represents a compelling, real-world look at emerging asthma recommendations. This was the first comprehensive study to show that as-needed ICS/LABA therapy prevents more moderate and severe exacerbations and lengthens the time to first severe exacerbation, compared with scheduled ICS plus SABA prn in intermittent, mild persistent, or moderate persistent asthma. These data have been incorporated into the GINA guidelines, which recommend ICS/LABA prn for step 2.

CAVEATS

Potential bias in study design

The LABA used in this study was formoterol, which has a quicker onset than other LABAs. It is likely that not all LABAs can be used the same way, and both the NIH and GINA guidelines call it out specifically. Additionally, the study’s open-label design can introduce bias but may be the only way to simulate the real-world actions of our patients. Prior studies used placebo inhalers to keep participants and providers blinded but then could not capitalize on the behavior of using only an inhaler prn (as with the ICS/LABA of this study). Finally, there is discordance between the NIH and GINA asthma guidelines on how to use these data.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Cost of ICS/LABA may limit its use

Cost is the largest barrier to implementation. Budesonide costs 6 to 10 times more than albuterol per inhaler (retail price of $281-$427 vs $17-$92, respectively).^7,8 However, cost differences are likely negated for patients already on a maintenance inhaler.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 37-year-old woman with moderate persistent asthma, controlled on the ICS fluticasone (110 μg twice a day) presents to you for an annual exam. She uses her rescue albuterol inhaler a few times per month. Her last exacerbation was 2 years ago. She has never smoked. She is concerned about continuing to take an ICS every day. What alternative regimen would you recommend for this patient?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, asthma affected 24.7 million children and adults in the United States in 2018, accounting for 9.8 million physician visits and 1.6 million emergency department (ED) visits.² The National Institutes of Health (NIH) asthma care guidelines, updated in 2020, recommend a SABA prn as step 1 for intermittent asthma, along with nonpharmacologic management.³ Once a patient has persistent asthma, treatment escalation to step 2 calls for use of daily maintenance inhalers as the preferred treatment option.³

However, the 2020 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) warns that an as-needed SABA does not protect patients from severe exacerbations, and regular use of a SABA alone (> 3 inhalers/year) can increase the risk of exacerbations.⁴ A meta-analysis and systematic review from 2018 showed that using an ICS/LABA—scheduled and prn for rescue—had lower risk of asthma exacerbations compared with scheduled ICS/LABA with SABA prn for rescue in patients with ­moderate-to-severe persistent asthma.⁵ Interestingly, the updated 2020 NIH guidelines have adopted this strategy. SABA use prn is no longer recommended for rescue in mild and moderate persistent asthma, and the guidelines now suggest that ICS/LABA be used as rescue in addition to daily medication.³

Although evidence has been mounting for adding the as-needed ICS/LABA for rescue in patients on daily medication, the mainstay has been to provide a SABA prn for rescue use.⁵ Confusing matters more, evidence is emerging that as-needed ICS/LABA for rescue alone in certain patients is safe and effective. The randomized controlled Novel START study, an open-label, parallel-group study, compared ICS/LABA prn vs scheduled ICS with SABA prn vs SABA alone prn in adult patients with intermittent or mild persistent asthma.⁶ ICS/LABA prn prevented more exacerbations and provided better daily control than as-needed SABA alone.⁶ In addition, ICS/LABA as needed resulted in fewer severe exacerbations but potentially poorer daily control than ICS with SABA as needed.⁶

The PRACTICAL study investigated treatment of patients with intermittent, mild persistent, and moderate persistent asthma.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

ICS/LABA prn reduced risk of severe exacerbations

The randomized controlled PRACTICAL study was a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group, superiority trial in New Zealand that compared as-needed ICS/LABA (n = 437) to scheduled ICS plus as-needed SABA (n = 448). Patients were 18 to 75 years old, with a diagnosis of asthma. Applying NIH guideline definitions, these patients would fall into intermittent, mild persistent, or moderate persistent asthma categories, and were on either as-needed SABA alone or a scheduled low- to moderate-dose ICS plus an as-needed SABA in the previous 12 weeks.

Patients on an as-needed SABA prerandomization had to have at least 1 of the following: (1) asthma symptoms or need for a SABA at least twice in the past 4 weeks; (2) at least 1 nighttime awakening due to asthma in the past 4 weeks; or (3) a severe exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids in the past year. Patients on scheduled ICS plus SABA prn prerandomization were required to have either: (1) low or moderate ICS dosing with partly or well-controlled asthma; or (2) if uncontrolled, poor inhaler technique or adherence.

Continue to: Patients in the ICS/LABA group...

Patients in the ICS/LABA group were given budesonide 200 µg/formoterol 6 µg, 1 puff prn, and patients in the ICS plus as-needed SABA group were given budesonide 200 µg, 1 puff twice daily, and terbutaline 250 µg, 2 puffs prn. All patients received an asthma action plan that provided guidance on when to seek medical care if asthma worsened, as well as a log to note urgent medical visits and use of systemic corticosteroids. A subset of patients had adherence and dosing monitored by electronic inhaler usage monitors. Patients were seen at 0, 4, 16, 28, 40, and 52 weeks.

Outcomes. The primary outcome was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year, defined as treatment with oral corticosteroids for ≥ 3 days or ED visit or hospital admission requiring systemic corticosteroids. Among the secondary outcomes were number of moderate and severe exacerbations per patient per year (defined as an unplanned medical visit: primary care, ED, hospital admission, and any duration of steroids); time to first severe exacerbation; assessment with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5); adverse outcomes; and quantity of ICS used (analysis done only for the subset with electronic inhaler monitoring).

This study represents a compelling, real-world look at emerging asthma recommendations.

ACQ-5 takes the mean of 5 questions assessing asthma control in the previous week, with each question ranging from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (maximum impairment). The statistician was blinded to the primary outcome.

Results. The rate of severe exacerbations per patient per year was 0.119 in the as-needed ICS/LABA group vs 0.172 in the scheduled ICS plus as-needed SABA group (relative rate [RR] = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48–1.00). Time to first severe asthma exacerbation was longer in the as-needed ICS/LABA group (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40–0.91). The rate of moderate and severe exacerbations per patient per year was lower in the as-needed ICS/LABA group: 0.165 vs 0.237 (RR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51–0.95).

ACQ-5 scores were similar at all time points (mean difference = 0.07; 95% CI, –0.03 to 0.17). Adverse events were similar between groups (most commonly nasopharyngitis in both groups). Less ICS was used in the ICS/LABA group (difference = –126.5 µg per day; 95% CI, –171.0 to –81.9).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Study lends support to recent recommendations

This study represents a compelling, real-world look at emerging asthma recommendations. This was the first comprehensive study to show that as-needed ICS/LABA therapy prevents more moderate and severe exacerbations and lengthens the time to first severe exacerbation, compared with scheduled ICS plus SABA prn in intermittent, mild persistent, or moderate persistent asthma. These data have been incorporated into the GINA guidelines, which recommend ICS/LABA prn for step 2.

CAVEATS

Potential bias in study design

The LABA used in this study was formoterol, which has a quicker onset than other LABAs. It is likely that not all LABAs can be used the same way, and both the NIH and GINA guidelines call it out specifically. Additionally, the study’s open-label design can introduce bias but may be the only way to simulate the real-world actions of our patients. Prior studies used placebo inhalers to keep participants and providers blinded but then could not capitalize on the behavior of using only an inhaler prn (as with the ICS/LABA of this study). Finally, there is discordance between the NIH and GINA asthma guidelines on how to use these data.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Cost of ICS/LABA may limit its use

Cost is the largest barrier to implementation. Budesonide costs 6 to 10 times more than albuterol per inhaler (retail price of $281-$427 vs $17-$92, respectively).^7,8 However, cost differences are likely negated for patients already on a maintenance inhaler.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

While most commercially insured patients with asthma have good disease control, some patients may not, according to a recent review of U.S. administrative claims data.

The results of the retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year, showed some patients with asthma had two or more refills for prescribed systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or short-acting beta agonists (SABA) within a period of 12 months.

“Frequent prescription of systemic corticosteroids and short-acting beta agonists is often indicative of poor asthma disease control,” Randall Brown, MD, MPH, pulmonologist and senior director of Global Respiratory Medical Affairs at Teva Pharmaceuticals in West Chester, Penn., said in a presentation at the meeting. “Understanding the extent of systemic steroid and SABA prescriptions among patients with asthma and the distribution of those prescriptions across disease severity can be useful in determining the degree of disease control.”

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines consider factors such as symptom control and risk of exacerbation when determining asthma severity, but uncontrolled asthma can still be difficult to assess. Dr. Brown and colleagues set out to determine the prevalence of uncontrolled asthma for patients in the IBM/Watson MarketScan U.S. claims database as well as the rate of uncontrolled asthma by GINA classification. In total, 597,955 patients who had an asthma diagnosis between 12 months before or up to 3 months after the index data of filling a SABA prescription were included for analysis. Patients were at least 12 years old with commercial insurance for at least 12 months, and had no other respiratory diseases other than asthma during the 12 months prior to the index date and during the study period.

The researchers then measured each patient’s 2018 GINA classification of asthma severity based on the number of SCS and SABA prescription claims made between January and December 2017. Overall, 54.3% patients were GINA Step 1, 14.6% were Step 2, 10.2% were Step 3, 19.8% were Step 4, and 1.1% were Step 5.

Dr. Brown and colleagues found that, regardless of GINA disease severity, 18.8% of patients filled two or more SCS prescriptions in 1 year, 27.4% filled three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year, and 38.7% filled two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year. “[A] large proportion of these patients did not meet the GINA goal of disease control,” Dr. Brown said.

The researchers found 13% of patients with uncontrolled asthma categorized as GINA Step 1, 20% of patients categorized as GINA Step 2, 19% of patients who were GINA Step 3, 31% of patients who were GINA Step 4, and 54% of patients categorized as GINA Step 5 filled two or more two or more SCS prescriptions per year.

The proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma who filled three or more SABA prescriptions per year included 19% in GINA Step 1, 29% in GINA Step 2, 35% in GINA Step 3, 44% in GINA Step 4, and 57% in GINA Step 5 groups. For patients who filled both two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions per year, the proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma by GINA category was 29% in GINA Step 1, 42% in GINA Step 2, 46% in GINA Step 3, 58% in GINA Step 4, and 76% of patients in GINA Step 5.

While “poor control was seen across all of the GINA disease severity classifications, the greatest proportion of uncontrolled disease was seen at the highest disease severity, which was also true when we used a stricter definition of uncontrolled disease,” Dr. Brown said. When the researchers applied stricter criteria for patients categorized as GINA Step 5, 39% of patients filled three or more SCS, 41% filled four or more SABA, and 60% filled three or more SCS and/or four or more SABA prescriptions over 12 months.

Dr. Brown said that the analysis “highlights the need for improved asthma management strategies within each of the asthma GINA classification steps.”

“While this population that was studied may be reflective of the wider insured U.S. population, the proportions of uncontrolled asthma may be even greater in non–commercially insured patients within the United States,” he said. “Updates to GINA guidelines incorporate recent consensus [and] recent scientific information and therapies, but many patients in the U.S. are not meeting the GINA goal of disease control. Newer paradigms for systemic corticosteroid-free asthma control as a target of disease ‘remission’ are becoming more commonplace. Such changes and goals may lead to improved asthma management strategies and advancement in treatment.”

This study was funded in part by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, which also provided funding for medical writing assistance from Ashfield MedComms. The authors report being employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals.

While most commercially insured patients with asthma have good disease control, some patients may not, according to a recent review of U.S. administrative claims data.

The results of the retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year, showed some patients with asthma had two or more refills for prescribed systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or short-acting beta agonists (SABA) within a period of 12 months.

“Frequent prescription of systemic corticosteroids and short-acting beta agonists is often indicative of poor asthma disease control,” Randall Brown, MD, MPH, pulmonologist and senior director of Global Respiratory Medical Affairs at Teva Pharmaceuticals in West Chester, Penn., said in a presentation at the meeting. “Understanding the extent of systemic steroid and SABA prescriptions among patients with asthma and the distribution of those prescriptions across disease severity can be useful in determining the degree of disease control.”

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines consider factors such as symptom control and risk of exacerbation when determining asthma severity, but uncontrolled asthma can still be difficult to assess. Dr. Brown and colleagues set out to determine the prevalence of uncontrolled asthma for patients in the IBM/Watson MarketScan U.S. claims database as well as the rate of uncontrolled asthma by GINA classification. In total, 597,955 patients who had an asthma diagnosis between 12 months before or up to 3 months after the index data of filling a SABA prescription were included for analysis. Patients were at least 12 years old with commercial insurance for at least 12 months, and had no other respiratory diseases other than asthma during the 12 months prior to the index date and during the study period.

The researchers then measured each patient’s 2018 GINA classification of asthma severity based on the number of SCS and SABA prescription claims made between January and December 2017. Overall, 54.3% patients were GINA Step 1, 14.6% were Step 2, 10.2% were Step 3, 19.8% were Step 4, and 1.1% were Step 5.

Dr. Brown and colleagues found that, regardless of GINA disease severity, 18.8% of patients filled two or more SCS prescriptions in 1 year, 27.4% filled three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year, and 38.7% filled two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year. “[A] large proportion of these patients did not meet the GINA goal of disease control,” Dr. Brown said.

The researchers found 13% of patients with uncontrolled asthma categorized as GINA Step 1, 20% of patients categorized as GINA Step 2, 19% of patients who were GINA Step 3, 31% of patients who were GINA Step 4, and 54% of patients categorized as GINA Step 5 filled two or more two or more SCS prescriptions per year.

The proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma who filled three or more SABA prescriptions per year included 19% in GINA Step 1, 29% in GINA Step 2, 35% in GINA Step 3, 44% in GINA Step 4, and 57% in GINA Step 5 groups. For patients who filled both two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions per year, the proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma by GINA category was 29% in GINA Step 1, 42% in GINA Step 2, 46% in GINA Step 3, 58% in GINA Step 4, and 76% of patients in GINA Step 5.

While “poor control was seen across all of the GINA disease severity classifications, the greatest proportion of uncontrolled disease was seen at the highest disease severity, which was also true when we used a stricter definition of uncontrolled disease,” Dr. Brown said. When the researchers applied stricter criteria for patients categorized as GINA Step 5, 39% of patients filled three or more SCS, 41% filled four or more SABA, and 60% filled three or more SCS and/or four or more SABA prescriptions over 12 months.

Dr. Brown said that the analysis “highlights the need for improved asthma management strategies within each of the asthma GINA classification steps.”

“While this population that was studied may be reflective of the wider insured U.S. population, the proportions of uncontrolled asthma may be even greater in non–commercially insured patients within the United States,” he said. “Updates to GINA guidelines incorporate recent consensus [and] recent scientific information and therapies, but many patients in the U.S. are not meeting the GINA goal of disease control. Newer paradigms for systemic corticosteroid-free asthma control as a target of disease ‘remission’ are becoming more commonplace. Such changes and goals may lead to improved asthma management strategies and advancement in treatment.”

This study was funded in part by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, which also provided funding for medical writing assistance from Ashfield MedComms. The authors report being employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals.

While most commercially insured patients with asthma have good disease control, some patients may not, according to a recent review of U.S. administrative claims data.

The results of the retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year, showed some patients with asthma had two or more refills for prescribed systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or short-acting beta agonists (SABA) within a period of 12 months.

“Frequent prescription of systemic corticosteroids and short-acting beta agonists is often indicative of poor asthma disease control,” Randall Brown, MD, MPH, pulmonologist and senior director of Global Respiratory Medical Affairs at Teva Pharmaceuticals in West Chester, Penn., said in a presentation at the meeting. “Understanding the extent of systemic steroid and SABA prescriptions among patients with asthma and the distribution of those prescriptions across disease severity can be useful in determining the degree of disease control.”

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines consider factors such as symptom control and risk of exacerbation when determining asthma severity, but uncontrolled asthma can still be difficult to assess. Dr. Brown and colleagues set out to determine the prevalence of uncontrolled asthma for patients in the IBM/Watson MarketScan U.S. claims database as well as the rate of uncontrolled asthma by GINA classification. In total, 597,955 patients who had an asthma diagnosis between 12 months before or up to 3 months after the index data of filling a SABA prescription were included for analysis. Patients were at least 12 years old with commercial insurance for at least 12 months, and had no other respiratory diseases other than asthma during the 12 months prior to the index date and during the study period.

The researchers then measured each patient’s 2018 GINA classification of asthma severity based on the number of SCS and SABA prescription claims made between January and December 2017. Overall, 54.3% patients were GINA Step 1, 14.6% were Step 2, 10.2% were Step 3, 19.8% were Step 4, and 1.1% were Step 5.

Dr. Brown and colleagues found that, regardless of GINA disease severity, 18.8% of patients filled two or more SCS prescriptions in 1 year, 27.4% filled three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year, and 38.7% filled two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions in 1 year. “[A] large proportion of these patients did not meet the GINA goal of disease control,” Dr. Brown said.

The researchers found 13% of patients with uncontrolled asthma categorized as GINA Step 1, 20% of patients categorized as GINA Step 2, 19% of patients who were GINA Step 3, 31% of patients who were GINA Step 4, and 54% of patients categorized as GINA Step 5 filled two or more two or more SCS prescriptions per year.

The proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma who filled three or more SABA prescriptions per year included 19% in GINA Step 1, 29% in GINA Step 2, 35% in GINA Step 3, 44% in GINA Step 4, and 57% in GINA Step 5 groups. For patients who filled both two or more SCS and/or three or more SABA prescriptions per year, the proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma by GINA category was 29% in GINA Step 1, 42% in GINA Step 2, 46% in GINA Step 3, 58% in GINA Step 4, and 76% of patients in GINA Step 5.

While “poor control was seen across all of the GINA disease severity classifications, the greatest proportion of uncontrolled disease was seen at the highest disease severity, which was also true when we used a stricter definition of uncontrolled disease,” Dr. Brown said. When the researchers applied stricter criteria for patients categorized as GINA Step 5, 39% of patients filled three or more SCS, 41% filled four or more SABA, and 60% filled three or more SCS and/or four or more SABA prescriptions over 12 months.

Dr. Brown said that the analysis “highlights the need for improved asthma management strategies within each of the asthma GINA classification steps.”

“While this population that was studied may be reflective of the wider insured U.S. population, the proportions of uncontrolled asthma may be even greater in non–commercially insured patients within the United States,” he said. “Updates to GINA guidelines incorporate recent consensus [and] recent scientific information and therapies, but many patients in the U.S. are not meeting the GINA goal of disease control. Newer paradigms for systemic corticosteroid-free asthma control as a target of disease ‘remission’ are becoming more commonplace. Such changes and goals may lead to improved asthma management strategies and advancement in treatment.”

This study was funded in part by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, which also provided funding for medical writing assistance from Ashfield MedComms. The authors report being employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask to protect against transmission of COVID-19 does not decrease oxygen saturation, according to a new study.

Oxygen saturation did not decline in more than 200 mask-wearing individuals attending an asthma and allergy clinic, regardless of the type of mask they were wearing and how long they had been wearing the mask.

The study was presented in a late breaking poster session by Marisa Hodges, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“In patients with or without asthma, wearing a mask does not decrease your oxygen level,” coauthor Alan P. Baptist, MD, MPH, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Asthma Program, said in an interview.

“Some of my asthma patients had called me requesting an exemption from wearing a mask because they feared that their oxygen intake may be affected, and that got me thinking,” said Malika Gupta, MD, assistant professor, division of allergy and immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the study’s lead investigator.

“We say masks are safe, but I couldn’t find any data to support that statement, and we wanted to provide them with evidence, so they could feel comfortable about wearing their masks,” Dr. Gupta added.

The study collected 223 surveys from adult and pediatric patients presenting to the University of Michigan Medicine Allergy Clinic between Sept. 10 and Oct. 23, 2020.

The patients were asked whether they had a diagnosis of asthma, their degree of perceived control if they did have asthma, the type of mask they were wearing, and how long they had been wearing it.

Investigators obtained resting pulse oximetry readings to measure oxygen saturation (SpO₂) from all study participants.

Forty percent of the participants were male, 46% reported having asthma, and 27% were age 19 years or younger.

Overall, the mean SpO₂ was 98% (range, 93%-100%) in both asthma and nonasthma groups.

The study also looked at SpO₂ with 3 different types of masks: fabric, surgical, and N95.

The mean SpO₂ for a fabric mask was 98% (119 patients), for a surgical mask it was also 98% (83 patients), and for the N95 mask it was 99% (3 patients).

Similar results were found with duration of mask use, with the mean SpO₂ 98% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or less and 99% in those wearing a mask for 1 hour or longer.

People with asthma who reported they were well controlled showed similar mean SpO₂ levels (98%) compared with those who reported they were not well controlled (96.5%)

“No effect on oxygen saturation was noted in any patients, whether they had asthma or not, whether it was well controlled or not, and this was also true regardless of what masks they wore and how long they wore the masks for. So our data reinforce that wearing a mask, whether it be a surgical mask, cloth mask, or N95, is completely safe,” Dr. Baptist said.

“We know wearing a mask is an essential step we can all take to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and we hope these data will give peace of mind to individuals who fear that wearing a mask will adversely affect their oxygen levels,” Dr. Gupta added.

Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed with the investigators’ conclusions.

“The authors found no differences in oxygen saturations between asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, nor was there a difference based upon mask use or type,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

“These findings provide reassurance that patients, including those with stable asthma, do not experience impaired oxygenation while wearing a mask.”

Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baptist, and Dr. Bacharier have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 3/11/21.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.