Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of maintenance asthma therapy. However, in spite of this, adherence to ICS remains low. The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide an overview of the current knowledge of adherence to ICS, effects of poor adherence, and means to improve adherence. A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria: 9 focusing on the level of adherence, 6 focusing on effects of poor adherence, and 7 focusing on interventions to improve adherence. Three of the studies focused on more than one of these end points. The mean level of adherence to ICS was found to be between 22 and 63%, with improvement up to and after an exacerbation. Poor adherence was associated with youth, being African-American, having mild asthma, < 12 y of formal education, and poor communication with the health-care provider, whereas improved adherence was associated with being prescribed fixed-combination therapy (ICS and long-acting β ₂ agonists). Good adherence was associated with higher FEV ₁ , a lower percentage of eosinophils in sputum, reduction in hospitalizations, less use of oral corticosteroids, and lower mortality rate. Overall, 24% of exacerbations and 60% of asthma-related hospitalizations could be attributed to poor adherence. Most studies have reported an increase in adherence following focused interventions, followed by an improvement in quality of life, symptoms, FEV ₁ , and oral corticosteroid use. However, 2 studies found no difference in health-care utilization, one observed no effect on symptoms, and one observed more symptoms in subjects in the intervention group compared with the control group. Good adherence to ICS in asthma improves outcome but remains low. Interventions to improve adherence show varying results, with most studies reporting an increase in adherence but unfortunately not necessarily an improvement in outcome. Even following successful interventions, adherence remains low. Further research is needed to explore barriers to adherence and interventions for improvement.

Introduction: Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require non-invasive respiratory support or invasive mechanical ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes.Methods: A task force from the European Respiratory Society, and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society, identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for inclusion in this “living guideline” using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) format. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence-to-decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations.Results: Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline update (14 February 2022) the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and of interleukin-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies or baricitinib for patients requiring supplementary oxygen and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for continuous positive airway pressure in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure and for combination treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab in patients who have no detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies (seronegative) and a susceptible variant. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. The panel recommended against multiple therapeutics, including hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, convalescent plasma, lopinavir-ritonavir and colchicine. Further recommendations for research are made.Conclusion: Several interventions reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 infection. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

Rationale: There is no consensus on criteria to include in an asthma remission definition in real life. Factors associated with achieving remission after biologic initiation remain poorly understood. Objectives: To quantify the proportion of adults with severe asthma achieving multidomain-defined remission after biologic initiation and identify prebiologic characteristics associated with achieving remission that may be used to predict it. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 23 countries from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1 year before and after biologic initiation. A priori–defined remission cutoffs were: 0 exacerbations/yr, no long-term oral corticosteroid (LTOCS), partly/well-controlled asthma, and percent predicted FEV1 ⩾ 80%. Remission was defined using two (exacerbations + LTOCS), three (+control or +lung function), and four of these domains. The association between prebiologic characteristics and postbiologic remission was assessed by multivariable analysis. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 50.2%, 33.5%, 25.8%, and 20.3% of patients met criteria for two-, three- (+control), three- (+lung function), and four-domain remission, respectively. The odds of achieving four-domain remission decreased by 15% for every additional 10 years of asthma duration (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–1.00). The odds of remission increased in those with fewer exacerbations per year, lower LTOCS daily dose, better control, and better lung function before biologic initiation. Conclusions: One in five patients achieved four-domain remission within 1 year of biologic initiation. Patients with less severe impairment and shorter asthma duration at initiation had a greater chance of achieving remission after biologic treatment, indicating that biologic treatment should not be delayed if remission is the goal.

Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of “one‐airway‐one‐disease,” coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper‐ and lower‐airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper‐ and lower‐airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the “Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis.” This review determined that the “one‐airway‐one‐disease” concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme “allergic” (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis. Rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity represent two distinct diseases with the following differences: (i) genomic and transcriptomic background (Toll‐Like Receptors and IL‐17 for rhinitis alone as a local disease; IL‐33 and IL‐5 for allergic and non‐allergic multimorbidity as a systemic disease), (ii) allergen sensitization patterns (mono‐ or pauci‐sensitization versus polysensitization), (iii) severity of symptoms, and (iv) treatment response. In conclusion, rhinitis alone (local disease) and rhinitis with asthma multimorbidity (systemic disease) should be considered as two distinct diseases, possibly modulated by the microbiome, and may be a model for understanding the epidemics of chronic and autoimmune diseases.

The aim of this study was to analyse mortality and associated risk factors, with special emphasis on health status, medications and co-morbidity, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that had been hospitalized for acute exacerbation. This prospective study included 416 patients from each of the five Nordic countries that were followed for 24 months. The St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) was administered. Information on treatment and co-morbidity was obtained. During the follow-up 122 (29.3%) of the 416 patients died. Patients with diabetes had an increased mortality rate [HR = 2.25 (1.28–3.95)]. Other risk factors were advanced age, low FEV₁ and lower health status. Patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids and/or long-acting beta-2-agonists had a lower risk of death than patients using neither of these types of treatment. Mortality was high after COPD admission, with older age, decreased lung function, lower health status and diabetes the most important risk factors. Treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators may be associated with lower mortality in patients with COPD.

Introduction: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors. Methods: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015– 2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018– 2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups. Results: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti–IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti–IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization. Conclusion: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.