Elizabeth V. Hillyer

Leukotriene Antagonists as First-Line or Add-on Asthma-Controller Therapy

BACKGROUND Most randomized trials of treatment for asthma study highly selected patients under idealized conditions. METHODS We conducted two parallel, multicenter, pragmatic trials to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist (LTRA) as compared with either an inhaled glucocorticoid for first-line asthma-controller therapy or a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients already receiving inhaled glucocorticoid therapy. Eligible primary care patients 12 to 80 years of age had impaired asthma-related quality of life (Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [MiniAQLQ] score ≤6) or inadequate asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] score ≥1). We randomly assigned patients to 2 years of open-label therapy, under the care of their usual physician, with LTRA (148 patients) or an inhaled glucocorticoid (158 patients) in the first-line controller therapy trial and LTRA (170 patients) or LABA (182 patients) added to an inhaled glucocorticoid in the add-on therapy trial. RESULTS Mean MiniAQLQ scores increased by 0.8 to 1.0 point over a period of 2 years in both trials. At 2 months, differences in the MiniAQLQ scores between the two treatment groups met our definition of equivalence (95% confidence interval [CI] for an adjusted mean difference, -0.3 to 0.3). At 2 years, mean MiniAQLQ scores approached equivalence, with an adjusted mean difference between treatment groups of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.13) in the first-line controller therapy trial and of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.11) in the add-on therapy trial. Exacerbation rates and ACQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Study results at 2 months suggest that LTRA was equivalent to an inhaled glucocorticoid as first-line controller therapy and to LABA as add-on therapy for diverse primary care patients. Equivalence was not proved at 2 years. The interpretation of results of pragmatic research may be limited by the crossover between treatment groups and lack of a placebo group. (Funded by the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment U.K. and others; Controlled Clinical Trials number, ISRCTN99132811.).

The asthma control test(TM) (ACT) as a predictor of GINA guideline-defined asthma control: analysis of a multinational cross-sectional survey

AIMS To evaluate whether the Asthma Control Test (ACT) score is predictive of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline-defined classification levels of asthma control. The ACT is a validated, 5-item, patient-completed measure of asthma control with a recall period of four weeks. METHODS Cross-sectional survey comparing ACT score and GINA classification of asthma control among 2949 patients attending primary care physicians and specialists in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the USA. RESULTS The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for ACT score predicting GINA control was 0.84 (95% CI 0.82-0.85). An ACT score of <19 (not well-controlled asthma) correctly predicted GINA-defined partly controlled/uncontrolled asthma 94% of the time, while an ACT score of >20 predicted GINA-defined controlled asthma 51% of the time, with kappa statistic of 0.42, representing moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS An ACT score <19 is useful for identifying patients with poorly controlled asthma as defined by GINA.

Blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma disease burden: a UK cohort study

BACKGROUND Elevated sputum eosinophil counts predict asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids but are impractical to measure in primary care. We investigated the relation between blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma outcomes for a large UK cohort. METHODS This historical cohort study used anonymised medical record data to identify primary care patients with asthma aged 12-80 years with 2 years of continuous records, including 1 year before (baseline) and 1 year after (outcome) their most recent eosinophil count. Negative binomial regression was used to compare outcome exacerbation rates and logistic regression to compare odds of asthma control for patients with blood eosinophil counts of 400 cells per μL or less versus greater than 400 cells per μL, adjusting for age, sex, body-mass index, smoking status, and Charlson comorbidity index. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02140541. FINDINGS Overall, 20 929 (16%) of 130 248 patients had blood eosinophil counts greater than 400 cells per μL. During the outcome year, these patients experienced significantly more severe exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 1·42, 95% CI 1·36-1·47) and acute respiratory events (RR 1·28, 1·24-1·33) than those with counts of 400 cells per μL or less. They also had significantly lower odds of achieving overall asthma control (OR 0·74, 95% CI 0·72-0·77), defined as limited reliever use and no asthma-related hospital attendance or admission, acute course of oral corticosteroids, or prescription for antibiotics. Exacerbation rates increased progressively with nine ascending categories of blood eosinophil count as compared with a reference category of 200 cells per μL or less. INTERPRETATION Patients with asthma and blood eosinophil counts greater than 400 cells per μL experience more severe exacerbations and have poorer asthma control. Furthermore, a count-response relation exists between blood eosinophil counts and asthma-related outcomes. Blood eosinophil counts could add predictive value to Global Initiative for Asthma control-based risk assessment. FUNDING Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Prescribing practices and asthma control with hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone and fluticasone: A real-world observational study

BACKGROUND Long-term randomized trials comparing asthma outcomes between inhaled corticosteroids in real-world populations are lacking. As such, rigorously conducted observational studies to complement the findings of randomized trials are needed. OBJECTIVE We sought to compare asthma-related outcomes over 1 year as recorded in a large primary care database for patients aged 5 to 60 years receiving a first prescription (initiation population) or dose increase (step-up population) of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone or fluticasone. METHODS We used a retrospective matched cohort study in which patients were matched on baseline demographic and disease severity measures. Coprimary outcomes were asthma control (a composite measure comprising no unplanned visit or hospitalization for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection) and exacerbation rate. RESULTS More than 80% of patients in each population achieved asthma control; 10% and 16% of patients in the initiation and step-up populations, respectively, received add-on or combination therapy during the year. Fluticasone was prescribed at significantly higher doses than HFA-beclomethasone for both populations (P <or= .001). In the initiation population (n = 1319 in each cohort) the adjusted odds ratio for achieving asthma control with HFA-beclomethasone was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.02-1.65) relative to fluticasone. In the step-up population (cohorts: n = 250) the adjusted odds ratio for achieving asthma control with HFA-beclomethasone was 1.22 (95% CI, 0.66-2.26). Exacerbation rates were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS In a real-world setting patients receiving HFA-beclomethasone had a similar or better chance of achieving asthma control at lower prescribed doses than with fluticasone.

Natural history of asthma: Persistence versus progression—does the beginning predict the end?

Environmental exposures during the early years and airway obstruction that develops during this time, in conjunction with genetic susceptibility, are important factors in the development of persistent asthma in childhood. Established risk factors for childhood asthma include frequent wheezing during the first 3 years, a parental history of asthma, a history of eczema, allergic rhinitis, wheezing apart from colds, and peripheral blood eosinophilia, as well as allergic sensitization to aeroallergens and certain foods. Risk factors for the development of asthma in adulthood remain ill defined. Moreover, reasons for variability in the clinical course of asthma--persistence in some individuals and progression in others--remain an enigma. The distinction between disease persistence and disease progression suggests that these are different entities or phenotypes. There is currently no consensus on whether disease progression requires either airway inflammation or airway remodeling or the combination of the two. For patients with irreversible airway obstruction, inflammation might, in part, be necessary but perhaps not entirely sufficient to induce the irreversible component, some of which could be attributed to alterations in the structure of the bronchial wall. Intervening with intermittent or daily inhaled corticosteroids in high-risk infants and children does not prevent disease progression or impaired lung growth. These findings, however, might not apply to adults, and further study in adults is needed to determine the effect of inhaled corticosteroid therapy on disease progression.

Asthma control with extrafine‐particle hydrofluoroalkane–beclometasone vs. large‐particle chlorofluorocarbon–beclometasone: a real‐world observational study

Background The extrafine‐particle formulation of hydrofluoroalkane–beclometasone (EF HFA–BDP; Qvar®) demonstrates improved total and small airway deposition compared with large‐particle chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)–BDP. In some short‐term studies, EF HFA–BDP provides greater effects on lung function than CFC–BDP, and hence is recommended to be prescribed at a lower dose, but whether there are differences in asthma outcomes during long‐term treatment is unknown.

Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma: Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness

Classical randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical evidence because of their high internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these approaches is preferable and necessary.

Efficacy versus effectiveness trials: informing guidelines for asthma management

Purpose of reviewRandomized controlled trials, known as efficacy trials and long considered the gold standard for evidence-based asthma guidelines, are designed to test whether interventions have a benefit for selective patient populations under ideal conditions. The goal of pragmatic trials and observational studies instead is to understand real-life efficacy, known as effectiveness. This review summarizes the strengths and limitations of efficacy and effectiveness trials, results of recent effectiveness trials in asthma and initiatives promoting effectiveness research. Recent findingsRecent pragmatic trials and observational studies have examined outcomes of interventions for diverse real-life patient populations, including smokers and patients with variable adherence, inhaler technique and baseline asthma control. Study results challenge practice guidelines regarding relative effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS); supplement guidelines with regard to effectiveness of interventions in smokers; and begin to address gaps in guidelines regarding choice of ICS and inhaler device. Initiatives are ongoing to refine methods of observational research and to harmonize asthma outcomes for better integration of results from all types of trials. SummaryResults of pragmatic trials and observational studies are an important component of the evidence needed to inform guideline recommendations and decision-making by healthcare providers, patients and policymakers.

Effectiveness of same versus mixed asthma inhaler devices: a retrospective observational study in primary care.

Purpose Correct use of inhaler devices is fundamental to effective asthma management but represents an important challenge for patients. The correct inhalation manoeuvre differs markedly for different inhaler types. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes for patients prescribed the same inhaler device versus mixed device types for asthma controller and reliever therapy. Methods This retrospective observational study identified patients with asthma (ages 4-80 years) in a large primary care database who were prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the first time. We compared outcomes for patients prescribed the same breath-actuated inhaler (BAI) for ICS controller and salbutamol reliever versus mixed devices (BAI for controller and pressurised metered-dose inhaler [pMDI] for reliever). The 2-year study included 1 baseline year before the ICS prescription (to identify and correct for confounding factors) and 1 outcome year. Endpoints were asthma control (defined as no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection) and severe exacerbations (hospitalisation or oral corticosteroids for asthma). Results Patients prescribed the same device (n=3,428) were significantly more likely to achieve asthma control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.28) and recorded significantly lower severe exacerbation rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93) than those prescribed mixed devices (n=5,452). Conclusions These findings suggest that, when possible, the same device should be prescribed for both ICS and reliever therapy when patients are initiating ICS.

Small-particle Inhaled Corticosteroid as First-line or Step-up Controller Therapy in Childhood Asthma

BACKGROUND Because randomized controlled trials of established pediatric asthma therapies are expensive and difficult to perform, observational studies may fill gaps in the evidence base. OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness of representative small-particle inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with that of standard size-particle ICS for children initiating or stepping up ICS therapy for asthma (analysis 1) and to compare the effectiveness of ICS dose step-up using small-particle ICS with adding long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) to the ICS (analysis 2). METHODS These historical matched cohort analyses drew on electronic medical records of children with asthma aged 5 to 11 years. Variables measured during 2 consecutive years (1 baseline year for confounder definition and 1 outcome year) included risk-domain asthma control (no hospital attendance for asthma, acute oral corticosteroids, or lower respiratory tract infection requiring antibiotics) and rate of severe exacerbations (asthma-related emergency, hospitalization, or oral corticosteroids). RESULTS In the initiation population (n = 797 in each cohort), children prescribed small-particle ICS versus standard size-particle ICS experienced greater odds of asthma control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02) and lower severe exacerbation rate (adjusted rate ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.88). Step-up outcomes (n = 206 in each cohort) were also significantly better for small-particle ICS, with asthma control adjusted odds ratio of 2.22 (95% CI, 1.23-4.03) and exacerbations adjusted rate ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.89). The number needed to treat with small-particle ICS to achieve 1 additional child with asthma control was 17 (95% CI, 9-107) for the initiation population and 5 (95% CI, 3-78) for the step-up population. Outcomes were not significantly different for stepped-up small-particle ICS dose versus ICS/LABA combination (n = 185 in each cohort). CONCLUSIONS Initiating or stepping up the ICS dose with small-particle ICS rather than with standard size-particle ICS is more effective and shows similar effectiveness to add-on LABA in childhood asthma.