Extension of mepolizumab injection intervals as potential of saving costs in well controlled patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.
Biologics
Injection intervals
Mepolizumab
Severe asthma
Journal
The World Allergy Organization journal
ISSN: 1939-4551
Titre abrégé: World Allergy Organ J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101481283
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
11
02
2022
revised:
29
08
2022
accepted:
30
08
2022
entrez:
18
10
2022
pubmed:
19
10
2022
medline:
19
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Present guidelines recommend a life-long therapy with mepolizumab in patients suffering from severe eosinophilic asthma as several studies proved the disadvantages of treatment cessation. This study evaluated the possibility of extending the dosage intervals of mepolizumab in those patients with severe eosinophilic asthma after being well controlled. Eighteen patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma were started on treatment with mepolizumab in regular 4-week intervals. Symptom control was measured using the asthma control test (ACT) and pulmonary function test every 3 months. The amount of oral corticosteroids needed to maintain symptom control was monitored at every visit. After achieving good symptom control, defined as well controlled ACT ≥20, injection intervals were prolonged from 4 up to 6 to 8 weeks. The evaluation of this data was approved by the ethics committee. ACT and pulmonary function values significantly improved after initiating therapy with mepolizumab on a regular 4-weekly injection interval. After extending the dosage intervals, both ACT and pulmonary function remained on a stable level without significant changes during the follow-up visits for 1 year. Median dosage of prednisolone declined significantly in the studied group under mepolizumab therapy and stayed on a low level during the follow-up visits with only a single patient using prednisolone after 1 year. In patients with fully or well controlled eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab extending the dosage intervals between the injections up to 8 weeks bears the potential to save costs for the health care system.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Present guidelines recommend a life-long therapy with mepolizumab in patients suffering from severe eosinophilic asthma as several studies proved the disadvantages of treatment cessation. This study evaluated the possibility of extending the dosage intervals of mepolizumab in those patients with severe eosinophilic asthma after being well controlled.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Eighteen patients diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma were started on treatment with mepolizumab in regular 4-week intervals. Symptom control was measured using the asthma control test (ACT) and pulmonary function test every 3 months. The amount of oral corticosteroids needed to maintain symptom control was monitored at every visit. After achieving good symptom control, defined as well controlled ACT ≥20, injection intervals were prolonged from 4 up to 6 to 8 weeks. The evaluation of this data was approved by the ethics committee.
Results
UNASSIGNED
ACT and pulmonary function values significantly improved after initiating therapy with mepolizumab on a regular 4-weekly injection interval. After extending the dosage intervals, both ACT and pulmonary function remained on a stable level without significant changes during the follow-up visits for 1 year. Median dosage of prednisolone declined significantly in the studied group under mepolizumab therapy and stayed on a low level during the follow-up visits with only a single patient using prednisolone after 1 year.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
In patients with fully or well controlled eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab extending the dosage intervals between the injections up to 8 weeks bears the potential to save costs for the health care system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36254185
doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2022.100703
pii: S1939-4551(22)00079-5
pmc: PMC9527939
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100703Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Références
J Asthma. 2021 May;58(5):651-658
pubmed: 31999203
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2021 Oct 25;31(5):459-460
pubmed: 33502319
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013 Feb;131(2):461-7.e1-5
pubmed: 23040887
Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2020 Apr;9(3):375-385
pubmed: 31317668
Eur Respir J. 2020 May 21;55(5):
pubmed: 32139455
Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2016 Mar;5(2):102-8
pubmed: 27138023
Eur Respir J. 2022 Jan 6;59(1):
pubmed: 34172470
Clin Exp Allergy. 2020 Jun;50(6):687-695
pubmed: 32198794
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015 Apr;135(4):896-902
pubmed: 25441637
Prim Care Respir J. 2009 Mar;18(1):41-9
pubmed: 19240948
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2018 Nov 22;14:68
pubmed: 30479629
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 Mar;133(3):921-3
pubmed: 24418480
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2019 Jun 10;15:37
pubmed: 31198427
Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 May 15;51(3):135-137
pubmed: 31081606
Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2020;181(8):613-617
pubmed: 32570256
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Dec;53(12):1015-27
pubmed: 26445140
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004 Jan;113(1):59-65
pubmed: 14713908
Allergol Select. 2020 Sep 7;4:53-68
pubmed: 32915172
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Jan;143(1):190-200.e20
pubmed: 30205189