Abstract
Background: We developed an eosinophil phenotype gradient algorithm and applied it to a large severe asthma cohort (International Severe Asthma Registry). Objective: We sought to reapply this algorithm in a UK primary care asthma cohort, quantify the eosinophilic phenotype, and assess the relationship between the likelihood of an eosinophilic phenotype and asthma severity/health care resource use (HCRU). Methods: Patients age 13 years and older with active asthma and blood eosinophil count or 1 or greater, who were included from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, were categorized according to the likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using the International Severe Asthma Registry gradient eosinophilic algorithm. Patient demographic, clinical and HCRU characteristics were described for each phenotype. Results: Of 241,006 patients, 50.3%, 22.2%, and 21.9% most likely (grade 3), likely (grade 2), and least likely (grade 1), respectively, had an eosinophilic phenotype, and 5.6% had a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Compared with patients with noneosinophilic asthma, those most likely to have an eosinophilic phenotype tended to have more comorbidities (percentage with Charlson comorbidity index of ≥2: 28.2% vs 6.9%) and experienced more asthma attacks (percentage with one or more attack: 24.8% vs 15.3%). These patients were also more likely to have asthma that was difficult to treat (31.1% vs 18.3%), to receive more intensive treatment (percentage on Global Initiative for Asthma 2020 step 4 or 5: 44.2% vs 27.5%), and greater HCRU (eg, 10.8 vs 7.9 general practitioner all-cause consultations per year). Conclusions: The eosinophilic asthma phenotype predominates in primary care and is associated with greater asthma severity and HCRU. These patients may benefit from earlier and targeted asthma therapy.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 4353-4370 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 12 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2021 |
Keywords
- Asthma
- Eosinophilic
- Health care resource use
- ISAR
- Phenotypes
- Primary care
- Severity
- United Kingdom
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, Vol. 9, No. 12, 12.2021, p. 4353-4370.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Asthma Phenotyping in Primary Care
T2 - Applying the International Severe Asthma Registry Eosinophil Phenotype Algorithm Across All Asthma Severities
AU - Kerkhof, Marjan
AU - Tran, Trung N.
AU - Allehebi, Riyad
AU - Canonica, G. Walter
AU - Heaney, Liam G.
AU - Hew, Mark
AU - Perez de Llano, Luis
AU - Wechsler, Michael E.
AU - Bulathsinhala, Lakmini
AU - Carter, Victoria A.
AU - Chaudhry, Isha
AU - Eleangovan, Neva
AU - Murray, Ruth B.
AU - Price, Chris A.
AU - Price, David B.
N1 - Funding Information: The Optimum Patient Care Research Database is established and maintained by Optimum Patient Care (OPC) Ltd. This study was funded by AstraZeneca and conducted collaboratively with the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and OPC Global Ltd.Conflicts of interest: M. Kerkhof, L. Bulathsinhala, I. Chaudhry, and N. Eleangovan were employees of OPRI at the time of the study, which conducted this study in collaboration with OPC and AstraZeneca. V.A. Carter and C.A. Price are employees of OPC Global Ltd, which conducted this study in collaboration with OPRI and AstraZeneca. T.N. Tran is an employee of AstraZeneca, which is the funder of this study. R. Al-Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. G.W. Canonica has received research grants as well as lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. L.G. Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by MedImmune, Novartis, Genentech/Hoffman Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi AstraZeneca, Teva, Theravance, and Circassia; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline, for which his institution received remuneration; and is the academic lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Genentech/Hoffman LaRoche, GlaxoSmithKline, Circassia, Vitalograph, and Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Hew declares grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. L. Perez de Llano declares nonfinancial support, personal fees, and grants from Teva; nonfinancial support and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Esteve, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, and Novartis; personal fees and grants from AstraZeneca and Chiesi; and personal fees from Sanofi; and nonfinancial support from Menairi outside the submitted work. M.E. Wechsler reports receiving consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cohero Health, Equillium, Genentech, GSK, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. D.B. Price has board memberships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Thermo Fisher; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Theravance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma and Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, and Thermo Fisher; funding for patient enrolment or completion of research from Novartis; and stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise OPC Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); and 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology; is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The rest of the authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest. Funding Information: Conflicts of interest: M. Kerkhof, L. Bulathsinhala, I. Chaudhry, and N. Eleangovan were employees of OPRI at the time of the study, which conducted this study in collaboration with OPC and AstraZeneca. V.A. Carter and C.A. Price are employees of OPC Global Ltd, which conducted this study in collaboration with OPRI and AstraZeneca. T.N. Tran is an employee of AstraZeneca , which is the funder of this study. R. Al-Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca , Boehringer Ingelheim , GlaxoSmithKline , and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. G.W. Canonica has received research grants as well as lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. L.G. Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by MedImmune , Novartis , Genentech / Hoffman Roche , GlaxoSmithKline , Evelo Biosciences , Sanofi AstraZeneca , Teva , Theravance , and Circassia ; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim , Hoffmann la Roche , and GlaxoSmithKline , for which his institution received remuneration; and is the academic lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Genentech/Hoffman LaRoche, GlaxoSmithKline, Circassia, Vitalograph, and Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Hew declares grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca , GlaxoSmithKline , Novartis , and Seqirus , for unrelated projects. L. Perez de Llano declares nonfinancial support, personal fees, and grants from Teva ; nonfinancial support and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim , Esteve , GlaxoSmithKline , Mundipharma , and Novartis ; personal fees and grants from AstraZeneca and Chiesi ; and personal fees from Sanofi; and nonfinancial support from Menairi outside the submitted work. M.E. Wechsler reports receiving consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cohero Health, Equillium, Genentech, GSK, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva. D.B. Price has board memberships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Thermo Fisher; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Theravance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca , Boehringer Ingelheim , Chiesi , Circassia , Mylan , Mundipharma , Novartis , Pfizer , Regeneron Pharmaceuticals , Respiratory Effectiveness Group , Sanofi Genzyme , Teva Pharmaceuticals , Theravance , and UK National Health Service ; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma and Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, and Thermo Fisher; funding for patient enrolment or completion of research from Novartis ; and stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise OPC Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); and 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology; is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The rest of the authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest. Funding Information: The OPCRD is established and maintained by Optimum Patient Care Ltd. This study was funded by AstraZeneca and conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd. The Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Optimum Patient Care, and AZ members of the ISAR Steering Committee had input into the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and manuscript writing, and are authors of this article in line with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors author criteria. Funding Information: The Optimum Patient Care Research Database is established and maintained by Optimum Patient Care (OPC) Ltd. This study was funded by AstraZeneca and conducted collaboratively with the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and OPC Global Ltd . Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Background: We developed an eosinophil phenotype gradient algorithm and applied it to a large severe asthma cohort (International Severe Asthma Registry). Objective: We sought to reapply this algorithm in a UK primary care asthma cohort, quantify the eosinophilic phenotype, and assess the relationship between the likelihood of an eosinophilic phenotype and asthma severity/health care resource use (HCRU). Methods: Patients age 13 years and older with active asthma and blood eosinophil count or 1 or greater, who were included from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, were categorized according to the likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using the International Severe Asthma Registry gradient eosinophilic algorithm. Patient demographic, clinical and HCRU characteristics were described for each phenotype. Results: Of 241,006 patients, 50.3%, 22.2%, and 21.9% most likely (grade 3), likely (grade 2), and least likely (grade 1), respectively, had an eosinophilic phenotype, and 5.6% had a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Compared with patients with noneosinophilic asthma, those most likely to have an eosinophilic phenotype tended to have more comorbidities (percentage with Charlson comorbidity index of ≥2: 28.2% vs 6.9%) and experienced more asthma attacks (percentage with one or more attack: 24.8% vs 15.3%). These patients were also more likely to have asthma that was difficult to treat (31.1% vs 18.3%), to receive more intensive treatment (percentage on Global Initiative for Asthma 2020 step 4 or 5: 44.2% vs 27.5%), and greater HCRU (eg, 10.8 vs 7.9 general practitioner all-cause consultations per year). Conclusions: The eosinophilic asthma phenotype predominates in primary care and is associated with greater asthma severity and HCRU. These patients may benefit from earlier and targeted asthma therapy.
AB - Background: We developed an eosinophil phenotype gradient algorithm and applied it to a large severe asthma cohort (International Severe Asthma Registry). Objective: We sought to reapply this algorithm in a UK primary care asthma cohort, quantify the eosinophilic phenotype, and assess the relationship between the likelihood of an eosinophilic phenotype and asthma severity/health care resource use (HCRU). Methods: Patients age 13 years and older with active asthma and blood eosinophil count or 1 or greater, who were included from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, were categorized according to the likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using the International Severe Asthma Registry gradient eosinophilic algorithm. Patient demographic, clinical and HCRU characteristics were described for each phenotype. Results: Of 241,006 patients, 50.3%, 22.2%, and 21.9% most likely (grade 3), likely (grade 2), and least likely (grade 1), respectively, had an eosinophilic phenotype, and 5.6% had a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Compared with patients with noneosinophilic asthma, those most likely to have an eosinophilic phenotype tended to have more comorbidities (percentage with Charlson comorbidity index of ≥2: 28.2% vs 6.9%) and experienced more asthma attacks (percentage with one or more attack: 24.8% vs 15.3%). These patients were also more likely to have asthma that was difficult to treat (31.1% vs 18.3%), to receive more intensive treatment (percentage on Global Initiative for Asthma 2020 step 4 or 5: 44.2% vs 27.5%), and greater HCRU (eg, 10.8 vs 7.9 general practitioner all-cause consultations per year). Conclusions: The eosinophilic asthma phenotype predominates in primary care and is associated with greater asthma severity and HCRU. These patients may benefit from earlier and targeted asthma therapy.
KW - Asthma
KW - Eosinophilic
KW - Health care resource use
KW - ISAR
KW - Phenotypes
KW - Primary care
KW - Severity
KW - United Kingdom
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114915158&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.07.056
DO - 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.07.056
M3 - Article
C2 - 34403837
AN - SCOPUS:85114915158
SN - 2213-2198
VL - 9
SP - 4353
EP - 4370
JO - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
JF - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
IS - 12
ER -