Background and objective Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are two prevalent and complex diseases that require personalized management. Although a strategy based on treatable traits (TTs) has been proposed, the prevalence and relationship of TTs to the diagnostic label and disease severity established by the attending physician in a real‐world setting are unknown. We assessed how the presence/absence of specific TTs relate to the diagnosis and severity of ‘asthma’, ‘COPD’ or ‘asthma + COPD’. Methods The authors selected 30 frequently occurring TTs from the NOVELTY study cohort (NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY; NCT02760329), a large (n = 11,226), global study that systematically collects data in a real‐world setting, both in primary care clinics and specialized centres, for patients with ‘asthma’ (n = 5932, 52.8%), ‘COPD’ (n = 3898, 34.7%) or both (‘asthma + COPD’; n = 1396, 12.4%). Results The results indicate that (1) the prevalence of the 30 TTs evaluated varied widely, with a mean ± SD of 4.6 ± 2.6, 5.4 ± 2.6 and 6.4 ± 2.8 TTs/patient in those with ‘asthma’, ‘COPD’ and ‘asthma + COPD’, respectively (p < 0.0001); (2) there were no large global geographical variations, but the prevalence of TTs was different in primary versus specialized clinics; (3) several TTs were specific to the diagnosis and severity of disease, but many were not; and (4) both the presence and absence of TTs formed a pattern that is recognized by clinicians to establish a diagnosis and grade its severity. Conclusion These results provide the largest and most granular characterization of TTs in patients with airway diseases in a real‐world setting to date.

Introduction There is, so far, no universal definition of severe asthma. This definition usually relies on: number of exacerbations, inhaled therapy, need for oral corticosteroids, and respiratory function. The use of such parameters varies in the different definitions used. Thus, according to the parameters chosen, each patient may result in having severe asthma or not. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the choice of a specific definition of severe asthma can change the allocation of patients. Methods Data collected from the Severe Asthma Network Italy (SANI) registry were analyzed. All the patients included were then reclassified according to the definitions of U-BIOPRED, NICE, WHO, ATS/ERS, GINA, ENFUMOSA, and TENOR. Results 540 patients, were extracted from the SANI database. We observed that 462 (86%) met the ATS/ERS criteria as well as the GINA criteria, 259 (48%) the U-Biopred, 222 (41%) the NICE, 125 (23%) the WHO, 313 (58%) the Enfumosa, and 251 (46%) the TENOR criteria. The mean eosinophil value were similar in the ATS/ERS, U-Biopred, and Enfumosa (528, 532 and 516 cells/mcl), higher in WHO and Tenor (567 and 570 cells/mcl) and much higher in the NICE classification (624 cells/mcl). Lung function tests resulted similarly in all groups, with WHO (67%) and ATS/ERS-GINA (73%), respectively, showing the lower and upper mean FEV1 values. Conclusions The present observations clearly evidence the heterogeneity in the distribution of patients when different definitions of severe asthma are used. However, the recent definition of severe asthma, provided by the GINA document, is similar to that indicated in 2014 by ATS/ERS, allowing mirror reclassification of the patients examined. This lack of homogeneity could complicate the access to biological therapies. The definition provided by the GINA document, which reflects what suggested by ATS/ERS, could partially overcome the problem.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and aims Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) which worsen patients’ health and increase healthcare spending. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic effect of adding mepolizumab (MEP) for the treatment of these patients. Methods Patients >18 years old, referred to 8 asthma clinics, starting MEP between May 2017 and December 2018, were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. Information in the 12 months before mepolizumab were collected retrospectively. The evaluation parameters included: OCS use, number of exacerbations/hospitalizations, concomitant therapies, comorbidity, and annual number of working days lost due to the disease. The primary objective was to compare the annual total cost per patient pre- and post-MEP. Secondary outcomes included rates of exacerbations and number of OCS-dependent patients. Results 106 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 male, median age 58 years. Mean annual cost pre- and post-MEP (cost of biologic excluded) was €3996 and €1,527, respectively. Total savings due to MEP resulted in €2469 (95%CI 1945–2993), 62% due to exacerbations reduction and 33% due to productivity increase. Such savings could fund about 22% of the total cost of MEP for one year. The introduction of MEP induced a clinical benefit by reducing both OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.06–0.23) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.19, 95%CI 0.15–0.24). Conclusions Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experienced a clinical benefit in asthma control adding MEP to standard therapy. Biologic therapy can be, partially, funded by the savings produced by patients’ improvement.