RT Journal Article
T1 Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma.
A1 Bikov, Andras
A1 Oğuzülgen, Ipek Kivilcim
A1 Baiardini, Ilaria
A1 Contoli, Marco
A1 Emelyanov, Alexander
A1 Fassio, Omar
A1 Ivancevich, Juan Carlos
A1 Kaidashev, Igor
A1 Kowal, Krzysztof
A1 Labor, Marina
A1 Lahousse, Lies
A1 Mihaicuta, Stefan
A1 Novakova, Silviya
A1 Padilla Galo, Alicia
A1 Simidchiev, Alexander
A1 Tiotiu, Angelica
A1 Ansotegui, Ignacio J
A1 Bernstein, Jonathan A
A1 Boulet, Louis Philippe
A1 Canonica, Giorgio Walter
A1 Dubuske, Lawrence
A1 Rosario, Nelson
A1 Santus, Pierachille
A1 Braido, Fulvio
A1 Interasma Scientific Network (INES), 
K1 Behavior
K1 Belief
K1 Biological drug
K1 Eos: Eosinophil, IL5
K1 ICS, inhaled corticosteroids
K1 INterasma Scientific Network, LABA
K1 Immunoglobulin E, INESNET
K1 Omalizumab. OMA/IL5, Omalizumab plus anti-IL5 molecule
K1 Severe asthma
K1 interleukine 5, IgE
K1 long-acting beta2-agonist, OMA
AB Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers' specialty and experience. We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p  Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.
SN 1939-4551
YR 2020
FD 2020-07-31
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10668/16078
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10668/16078
LA en
DS RISalud
RD Apr 6, 2025