4.3 Article

Uncontrolled persistent allergic asthma in practice: eXpeRience registry baseline characteristics

期刊

CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 761-767

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2011.557717

关键词

Asthma management; Immunoglobulin E; Omalizumab

资金

  1. Novartis Pharma AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Medical registries can be used to assess and monitor the effectiveness and safety of approved therapy, and provide insights into how quality of care can be optimized. The post-marketing, non-interventional, observational registry (eXpeRience) aims to collect data on the treatment effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in ''real-world'' practice. The baseline characteristics of patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma receiving omalizumab therapy and included in the first interim analysis of this observational registry are reported. A total of 294 patients were included in the first interim analysis. Of these patients, 271 (92.2%%) were active in the registry at the time of reporting. At baseline, the mean duration of allergic asthma was approximately 19 years, with over 87%% of patients testing positive for a perennial allergen. Mean %% predicted FEV(1) and serum total IgE levels were 62.4%% and 316.7 IU/mL, respectively. Asthma was uncontrolled for approximately 62%% of patients, while around 23%% were partly controlled. The majority of patients were being treated with multiple asthma controller medications, including inhaled-corticosteroids, long-acting beta beta(2)-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists, and 28%% of patients were also receiving maintenance oral corticosteroids. Concomitant diseases were present in many patients, the most common being perennial allergic rhinitis (42.5%%). Demographic and disease characteristics highlight the unmet clinical need in patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma. Future analyses from this study will further determine the real-life effectiveness and safety of omalizumab.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据