哮喘专家对重症哮喘患者生物治疗的选择和时机缺乏共识。

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jaip.2025.01.017
Andréanne Côté MD-MSc, FRCPC , Rosalie Beaulé MD , Marie-Ève Boulay MS , Jakie Guertin MS , Louis-Philippe Boulet MD, FRCPC , Krystelle Godbout MD, FRCPC , David Price MD, FRCGP
{"title":"哮喘专家对重症哮喘患者生物治疗的选择和时机缺乏共识。","authors":"Andréanne Côté MD-MSc, FRCPC ,&nbsp;Rosalie Beaulé MD ,&nbsp;Marie-Ève Boulay MS ,&nbsp;Jakie Guertin MS ,&nbsp;Louis-Philippe Boulet MD, FRCPC ,&nbsp;Krystelle Godbout MD, FRCPC ,&nbsp;David Price MD, FRCGP","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.01.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Because the number of monoclonal antibodies available for severe asthma is growing, specialists currently choose without clear guidelines. Despite increasing knowledge on treatment response to these monoclonal antibodies, making the optimal choice for each individual patient remains a challenge. However, evidence of this daily challenge is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate interobserver agreement on the choice of biologic therapy in severe asthma patients among severe asthma specialists, based on clinical cases.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This 2-phase study included a pilot local study and an international validation study. Asthma specialists were presented 7 real-life asthma cases managed with a monoclonal antibody. Based on the clinical information provided in the cases, they were asked whether they would have initiated a monoclonal antibody and, if so, their treatment of choice between (1) omalizumab, (2) mepolizumab, (3) reslizumab, (4) benralizumab, and (5) dupilumab. Interobserver agreement for each question was assessed using Gwet agreement coefficient (AC1).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixteen physicians from the Province of Quebec (Canada) completed the pilot survey, and 70 physicians from 26 countries completed the international survey. The Gwet AC1 for the decision to initiate a biological therapy was 0.48 in the pilot survey and 0.33 in the international survey. For the choice of therapy, agreement was 0.33 and 0.26, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The interobserver agreement among asthma specialists in both the decision to initiate a biological treatment in patients with severe asthma and the selection of treatment is weak. These results highlight the need for studies seeking reliable predictors for optimal response to biological therapies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"13 6","pages":"Pages 1358-1366.e9"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Poor Agreement Among Asthma Specialists on the Choice and Timing of Initiation of a Biologic Treatment for Severe Asthma Patients\",\"authors\":\"Andréanne Côté MD-MSc, FRCPC ,&nbsp;Rosalie Beaulé MD ,&nbsp;Marie-Ève Boulay MS ,&nbsp;Jakie Guertin MS ,&nbsp;Louis-Philippe Boulet MD, FRCPC ,&nbsp;Krystelle Godbout MD, FRCPC ,&nbsp;David Price MD, FRCGP\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.01.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Because the number of monoclonal antibodies available for severe asthma is growing, specialists currently choose without clear guidelines. Despite increasing knowledge on treatment response to these monoclonal antibodies, making the optimal choice for each individual patient remains a challenge. However, evidence of this daily challenge is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate interobserver agreement on the choice of biologic therapy in severe asthma patients among severe asthma specialists, based on clinical cases.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This 2-phase study included a pilot local study and an international validation study. Asthma specialists were presented 7 real-life asthma cases managed with a monoclonal antibody. Based on the clinical information provided in the cases, they were asked whether they would have initiated a monoclonal antibody and, if so, their treatment of choice between (1) omalizumab, (2) mepolizumab, (3) reslizumab, (4) benralizumab, and (5) dupilumab. Interobserver agreement for each question was assessed using Gwet agreement coefficient (AC1).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixteen physicians from the Province of Quebec (Canada) completed the pilot survey, and 70 physicians from 26 countries completed the international survey. The Gwet AC1 for the decision to initiate a biological therapy was 0.48 in the pilot survey and 0.33 in the international survey. For the choice of therapy, agreement was 0.33 and 0.26, respectively.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The interobserver agreement among asthma specialists in both the decision to initiate a biological treatment in patients with severe asthma and the selection of treatment is weak. These results highlight the need for studies seeking reliable predictors for optimal response to biological therapies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice\",\"volume\":\"13 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1358-1366.e9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213219825000613\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213219825000613","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着用于严重哮喘的单克隆抗体数量的增加,目前专家们的选择缺乏明确的指南。尽管对这些单克隆抗体的治疗反应的了解越来越多,但为每个患者做出最佳选择仍然是一个挑战。然而,缺乏这种日常挑战的证据。目的:以临床病例为基础,评价重症哮喘专科医师在重症哮喘患者生物治疗选择上的观察者间一致性。方法:本研究分为两阶段,包括一项本地试点研究和一项国际验证研究。哮喘专家介绍了7例使用单克隆抗体管理的真实哮喘病例。根据病例中提供的临床信息,他们被问及是否会开始使用单克隆抗体,如果是,他们的治疗选择是a) Omalizumab, b) Mepolizumab, c) Reslizumab, d) Benralizumab和e) Dupilumab。使用Gwet的AC1评估每个问题的观察者间一致性。结果:来自加拿大魁北克省的16名医生完成了试点调查,来自26个国家的70名医生完成了国际调查。Gwet决定启动生物疗法的AC1在试点调查中为0.48,在国际调查中为0.33。对于治疗的选择,一致性分别为0.33和0.26。结论:哮喘专家在决定是否对重症哮喘患者进行生物治疗和选择治疗方案时,观察者间的一致性较弱。这些结果强调需要研究寻求可靠的预测因子,以获得对生物治疗的最佳反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Poor Agreement Among Asthma Specialists on the Choice and Timing of Initiation of a Biologic Treatment for Severe Asthma Patients

Background

Because the number of monoclonal antibodies available for severe asthma is growing, specialists currently choose without clear guidelines. Despite increasing knowledge on treatment response to these monoclonal antibodies, making the optimal choice for each individual patient remains a challenge. However, evidence of this daily challenge is lacking.

Objective

To evaluate interobserver agreement on the choice of biologic therapy in severe asthma patients among severe asthma specialists, based on clinical cases.

Methods

This 2-phase study included a pilot local study and an international validation study. Asthma specialists were presented 7 real-life asthma cases managed with a monoclonal antibody. Based on the clinical information provided in the cases, they were asked whether they would have initiated a monoclonal antibody and, if so, their treatment of choice between (1) omalizumab, (2) mepolizumab, (3) reslizumab, (4) benralizumab, and (5) dupilumab. Interobserver agreement for each question was assessed using Gwet agreement coefficient (AC1).

Results

Sixteen physicians from the Province of Quebec (Canada) completed the pilot survey, and 70 physicians from 26 countries completed the international survey. The Gwet AC1 for the decision to initiate a biological therapy was 0.48 in the pilot survey and 0.33 in the international survey. For the choice of therapy, agreement was 0.33 and 0.26, respectively.

Conclusions

The interobserver agreement among asthma specialists in both the decision to initiate a biological treatment in patients with severe asthma and the selection of treatment is weak. These results highlight the need for studies seeking reliable predictors for optimal response to biological therapies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
9.60%
发文量
683
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: JACI: In Practice is an official publication of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). It is a companion title to The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and it aims to provide timely clinical papers, case reports, and management recommendations to clinical allergists and other physicians dealing with allergic and immunologic diseases in their practice. The mission of JACI: In Practice is to offer valid and impactful information that supports evidence-based clinical decisions in the diagnosis and management of asthma, allergies, immunologic conditions, and related diseases. This journal publishes articles on various conditions treated by allergist-immunologists, including food allergy, respiratory disorders (such as asthma, rhinitis, nasal polyps, sinusitis, cough, ABPA, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis), drug allergy, insect sting allergy, anaphylaxis, dermatologic disorders (such as atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, urticaria, angioedema, and HAE), immunodeficiency, autoinflammatory syndromes, eosinophilic disorders, and mast cell disorders. The focus of the journal is on providing cutting-edge clinical information that practitioners can use in their everyday practice or to acquire new knowledge and skills for the benefit of their patients. However, mechanistic or translational studies without immediate or near future clinical relevance, as well as animal studies, are not within the scope of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Dupilumab sustains efficacy despite LABA and ICS withdrawal in patients with asthma: a post hoc analysis. Values-Based Healthcare and the Quintuple Aim: Connection, Compassion, Equity, & Stewardship. Closing the Evidence-to-Practice Gap in Early Allergen Introduction: Policy Strategies to Prevent Food Allergy in the United States. From CVID to PIRD: Genetic testing Leading to Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription (STAT) 3 Gain-of-Function Diagnosis and Directed Therapy. Age-Appropriate Low Dosing for FPIES Oral Food Challenges: Proposing a Standardized Approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1