Eric D. Bateman

Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary

Asthma is a serious health problem throughout the world. During the past two decades, many scientific advances have improved our understanding of asthma and ability to manage and control it effectively. However, recommendations for asthma care need to be adapted to local conditions, resources and services. Since it was formed in 1993, the Global Initiative for Asthma, a network of individuals, organisations and public health officials, has played a leading role in disseminating information about the care of patients with asthma based on a process of continuous review of published scientific investigations. A comprehensive workshop report entitled “A Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention”, first published in 1995, has been widely adopted, translated and reproduced, and forms the basis for many national guidelines. The 2006 report contains important new themes. First, it asserts that “it is reasonable to expect that in most patients with asthma, control of the disease can and should be achieved and maintained,” and recommends a change in approach to asthma management, with asthma control, rather than asthma severity, being the focus of treatment decisions. The importance of the patient–care giver partnership and guided self-management, along with setting goals for treatment, are also emphasised.

An Official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement: Asthma Control and Exacerbations Standardizing Endpoints for Clinical Asthma Trials and Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND The assessment of asthma control is pivotal to the evaluation of treatment response in individuals and in clinical trials. Previously, asthma control, severity, and exacerbations were defined and assessed in many different ways. PURPOSE The Task Force was established to provide recommendations about standardization of outcomes relating to asthma control, severity, and exacerbations in clinical trials and clinical practice, for adults and children aged 6 years or older. METHODS A narrative literature review was conducted to evaluate the measurement properties and strengths/weaknesses of outcome measures relevant to asthma control and exacerbations. The review focused on diary variables, physiologic measurements, composite scores, biomarkers, quality of life questionnaires, and indirect measures. RESULTS The Task Force developed new definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance. In view of current knowledge about the multiple domains of asthma and asthma control, no single outcome measure can adequately assess asthma control. Its assessment in clinical trials and in clinical practice should include components relevant to both of the goals of asthma treatment, namely achievement of best possible clinical control and reduction of future risk of adverse outcomes. Recommendations are provided for the assessment of asthma control in clinical trials and clinical practice, both at baseline and in the assessment of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS The Task Force recommendations provide a basis for a multicomponent assessment of asthma by clinicians, researchers, and other relevant groups in the design, conduct, and evaluation of clinical trials, and in clinical practice.

International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma

Severe or therapy-resistant asthma is increasingly recognised as a major unmet need. A Task Force, supported by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, reviewed the definition and provided recommendations and guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of severe asthma in children and adults. A literature review was performed, followed by discussion by an expert committee according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for development of specific clinical recommendations. When the diagnosis of asthma is confirmed and comorbidities addressed, severe asthma is defined as asthma that requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller and/or systemic corticosteroids to prevent it from becoming “uncontrolled” or that remains “uncontrolled” despite this therapy. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition consisting of phenotypes such as eosinophilic asthma. Specific recommendations on the use of sputum eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide to guide therapy, as well as treatment with anti-IgE antibody, methotrexate, macrolide antibiotics, antifungal agents and bronchial thermoplasty are provided. Coordinated research efforts for improved phenotyping will provide safe and effective biomarker-driven approaches to severe asthma therapy. ERS/ATS guidelines revise the definition of severe asthma, discuss phenotypes and provide guidance on patient management http://ow.ly/roufI

Global asthma prevalence in adults: findings from the cross-sectional world health survey

BackgroundAsthma is a major cause of disability, health resource utilization and poor quality of life world-wide. We set out to generate estimates of the global burden of asthma in adults, which may inform the development of strategies to address this common disease.MethodsThe World Health Survey (WHS) was developed and implemented by the World Health Organization in 2002-2003. A total of 178,215 individuals from 70 countries aged 18 to 45 years responded to questions related to asthma and related symptoms. The prevalence of asthma was based on responses to questions relating to self-reported doctor diagnosed asthma, clinical/treated asthma, and wheezing in the last 12 months.ResultsThe global prevalence rates of doctor diagnosed asthma, clinical/treated asthma and wheezing in adults were 4.3%, 4.5%, and 8.6% respectively, and varied by as much as 21-fold amongst the 70 countries. Australia reported the highest rate of doctor diagnosed, clinical/treated asthma, and wheezing (21.0%, 21.5%, and 27.4%). Amongst those with clinical/treated asthma, almost 24% were current smokers, half reported wheezing, and 20% had never been treated for asthma.ConclusionsThis study provides a global estimate of the burden of asthma in adults, and suggests that asthma continues to be a major public health concern worldwide. The high prevalence of smoking remains a major barrier to combating the global burden of asthma. While the highest prevalence rates were observed in resource-rich countries, resource-poor nations were also significantly affected, posing a barrier to development as it stretches further the demands of non-communicable diseases.

Roflumilast—an oral anti-inflammatory treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by progressive airflow limitation associated with chronic inflammation. There are few treatment options for the disease. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, in patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS This phase III, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study was undertaken in an outpatient setting. 1411 patients with COPD were randomly assigned roflumilast 250 microg (n=576), roflumilast 500 microg (n=555), or placebo (n=280) given orally once daily for 24 weeks. Primary outcomes were postbronchodilator FEV1 and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes included other lung function parameters and COPD exacerbations. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS 1157 (82%) patients completed the study; 32 (11%) withdrew from the placebo group, 100 (17%) from the roflumilast 250 microg group, and 124 (22%) from the roflumilast 500 microg group. Postbronchodilator FEV1 at the end of treatment significantly improved with roflumilast 250 microg (by 74 mL [SD 18]) and roflumilast 500 microg (by 97 mL [18]) compared with placebo (p<0.0001). Improvement in health-related quality of life was greater with roflumilast 250 microg (-3.4 units [0.6]) and roflumilast 500 microg (-3.5 units [0.6]) than with placebo (-1.8 units [0.8]), although the differences between treatment groups were not significant. The mean numbers of exacerbations per patient were 1.13 (2.37), 1.03 (2.33), and 0.75 (1.89) with placebo, roflumilast 250 microg, and roflumilast 500 microg, respectively. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and resolved during the study. INTERPRETATION Roflumilast is a promising candidate for anti-inflammatory COPD treatment because it improved lung function and reduced exacerbations compared with placebo. Long-term studies are needed to fully assess the effect on health-related quality of life.

Reslizumab for inadequately controlled asthma with elevated blood eosinophil counts: results from two multicentre, parallel, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND Elevated numbers of blood eosinophils are a risk factor for asthma exacerbations. Reslizumab is a humanised anti-interleukin 5 monoclonal antibody that disrupts eosinophil maturation and promotes programmed cell death. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of reslizumab in patients with inadequately controlled, moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS We did two duplicate, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Both trials enrolled patients with asthma aged 12-75 years (from 128 clinical research centres in study 1 and 104 centres in study 2) from Asia, Australia, North America, South America, South Africa, and Europe, whose asthma was inadequately controlled by medium-to-high doses of inhaled corticosteroid based therapy and who had blood eosinophils of 400 cells per μL or higher and one or more exacerbations in the previous year. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either intravenous reslizumab (3·0 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year by computerised central randomisation. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment during the study. Each patient received a specific volume of study drug (reslizumab or matching placebo) on the basis of the patients body weight and randomly assigned treatment group. Additionally, the sponsors clinical personnel involved in the study were masked to the study drug identity until the database was locked for analysis and the treatment assignment revealed. The primary outcome was the annual frequency of clinical asthma exacerbations and was analysed by intention to treat. We assessed safety outcomes in the patients who had received one or more dose of the drug. The trials have been completed and are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01287039 (study 1) and NCT01285323 (study 2). FINDINGS Study 1 was done between April 12, 2011, and March 3, 2014 and study 2 between March 22, 2011, and April 9, 2014. Of 2597 patients screened, 953 were randomly assigned to receive either reslizumab (n=477 [245 in study 1 and 232 in study 2]) or placebo (n=476 [244 and 232]). In both studies, patients receiving reslizumab had a significant reduction in the frequency of asthma exacerbations (study 1: rate ratio [RR] 0·50 [95% CI 0·37-0·67]; study 2: 0·41 [0·28-0·59]; both p<0·0001) compared with those receiving placebo. Common adverse events on reslizumab were similar to placebo. The most common adverse events were worsening asthma symptoms (127 [52%] for placebo and 97 [40%] for reslizumab in study 1; 119 [51%] for placebo and 67 [29%] for reslizumab for study 2), upper respiratory tract infections (32 [13%] and 39 [16%]; 16 [7%] and eight [3%]), and nasopharyngitis (33 [14%] and 28 [11%]; 56 [24%] and 45 [19%]). Two patients in the reslizumab group had anaphylactic reactions; both responded to standard treatment at the study centre and resolved, and the patients were withdrawn from the study. INTERPRETATION These results support the use of reslizumab in patients with asthma and elevated blood eosinophil counts who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroid-based therapy. FUNDING Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D.

A new perspective on concepts of asthma severity and control

Concepts of asthma severity and control are important in the evaluation of patients and their response to treatment but the terminology is not standardised and the terms are often used interchangeably. This review, arising from the work of an American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Task Force, identifies the need for separate concepts of control and severity, describes their evolution in asthma guidelines and provides a framework for understanding the relationship between current concepts of asthma phenotype, severity and control. “Asthma control” refers to the extent to which the manifestations of asthma have been reduced or removed by treatment. Its assessment should incorporate the dual components of current clinical control (e.g. symptoms, reliever use and lung function) and future risk (e.g. exacerbations and lung function decline). The most clinically useful concept of asthma severity is based on the intensity of treatment required to achieve good asthma control, i.e. severity is assessed during treatment. Severe asthma is defined as the requirement for (not necessarily just prescription or use of) high-intensity treatment. Asthma severity may be influenced by the underlying disease activity and by the patients phenotype, both of which may be further described using pathological and physiological markers. These markers can also act as surrogate measures for future risk.

A summary of the new GINA strategy: a roadmap to asthma control

Over the past 20 years, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) has regularly published and annually updated a global strategy for asthma management and prevention that has formed the basis for many national guidelines. However, uptake of existing guidelines is poor. A major revision of the GINA report was published in 2014, and updated in 2015, reflecting an evolving understanding of heterogeneous airways disease, a broader evidence base, increasing interest in targeted treatment, and evidence about effective implementation approaches. During development of the report, the clinical utility of recommendations and strategies for their practical implementation were considered in parallel with the scientific evidence. This article provides a summary of key changes in the GINA report, and their rationale. The changes include a revised asthma definition; tools for assessing symptom control and risk factors for adverse outcomes; expanded indications for inhaled corticosteroid therapy; a framework for targeted treatment based on phenotype, modifiable risk factors, patient preference, and practical issues; optimisation of medication effectiveness by addressing inhaler technique and adherence; revised recommendations about written asthma action plans; diagnosis and initial treatment of the asthma−chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome; diagnosis in wheezing pre-school children; and updated strategies for adaptation and implementation of GINA recommendations. This paper summarises key changes in the GINA global strategy report, a practical new resource for asthma care http://ow.ly/ObvYi

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2008

J. Bousquet, N. Khaltaev, A. A. Cruz, J. Denburg, W. J. Fokkens, A. Togias, T. Zuberbier, C. E. Baena-Cagnani, G. W. Canonica, C. van Weel, I. Agache, N. A t-Khaled, C. Bachert, M. S. Blaiss, S. Bonini, L.-P. Boulet, P.-J. Bousquet, P. Camargos, K.-H. Carlsen, Y. Chen, A. Custovic, R. Dahl, P. Demoly, H. Douagui, S. R. Durham, R. Gerth van Wijk, O. Kalayci, M. A. Kaliner, Y.-Y. Kim, M. L. Kowalski, P. Kuna, L. T. T. Le, C. Lemiere, J. Li, R. F. Lockey, S. Mavale-Manuel , E. O. Meltzer, Y. Mohammad, J. Mullol, R. Naclerio, R. E. O Hehir, K. Ohta, S. Ouedraogo, S. Palkonen, N. Papadopoulos, G. Passalacqua, R. Pawankar, T. A. Popov, K. F. Rabe, J. Rosado-Pinto, G. K. Scadding, F. E. R. Simons, E. Toskala, E. Valovirta, P. van Cauwenberge, D.-Y. Wang, M. Wickman, B. P. Yawn, A. Yorgancioglu, O. M. Yusuf, H. Zar Review Group: I. Annesi-Maesano, E. D. Bateman, A. Ben Kheder, D. A. Boakye, J. Bouchard, P. Burney, W. W. Busse, M. Chan-Yeung, N. H. Chavannes, A. Chuchalin, W. K. Dolen, R. Emuzyte, L. Grouse, M. Humbert, C. Jackson, S. L. Johnston, P. K. Keith, J. P. Kemp, J.-M. Klossek, D. Larenas-Linnemann, B. Lipworth, J.-L. Malo, G. D. Marshall, C. Naspitz, K. Nekam, B. Niggemann, E. Nizankowska-Mogilnicka, Y. Okamoto, M. P. Orru, P. Potter, D. Price, S. W. Stoloff, O. Vandenplas, G. Viegi, D. Williams

COPD in Never Smokers: Results From the Population-Based Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease Study

Background: Never smokers comprise a substantial proportion of patients with COPD. Their characteristics and possible risk factors in this population are not yet well defined. Methods: We analyzed data from 14 countries that participated in the international, population-based Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study. Participants were aged ≥ 40 years and completed postbronchodilator spirometry testing plus questionnaires about respiratory symptoms, health status, and exposure to COPD risk factors. A diagnosis of COPD was based on the postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio, according to current GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) guidelines. In addition to this, the lower limit of normal (LLN) was evaluated as an alternative threshold for the FEV1/FVC ratio. Results: Among 4,291 never smokers, 6.6% met criteria for mild (GOLD stage I) COPD, and 5.6% met criteria for moderate to very severe (GOLD stage II+) COPD. Although never smokers were less likely to have COPD and had less severe COPD than ever smokers, never smokers nonetheless comprised 23.3% (240/1,031) of those classified with GOLD stage II+ COPD. This proportion was similar, 20.5% (171/832), even when the LLN was used as a threshold for the FEV1/FVC ratio. Predictors of COPD in never smokers include age, education, occupational exposure, childhood respiratory diseases, and BMI alterations. Conclusion: This multicenter international study confirms previous evidence that never smokers comprise a substantial proportion of individuals with COPD. Our data suggest that, in addition to increased age, a prior diagnosis of asthma and, among women, lower education levels are associated with an increased risk for COPD among never smokers.