Stuart W. Stoloff

Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen)

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

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.

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.

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

Asthma outcomes: composite scores of asthma control.

BACKGROUND Current asthma guidelines recommend assessing the level of a patients asthma control. Consequently, there is increasing use of asthma control as an outcome measure in clinical research studies. Several composite assessment instruments have been developed to measure asthma control. OBJECTIVE National Institutes of Health institutes and federal agencies convened an expert group to propose the most appropriate standardized composite score of asthma control instruments to be used in future asthma studies. METHODS We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed using both the National Library of Medicines Medical Subject Headings and key terms to identify studies that attempted to develop and/or test composite score instruments for asthma control. We classified instruments as core (required in future studies), supplemental (used according to study aims and standardized), or emerging (requiring validation and standardization). This work was discussed at a National Institutes of Health-organized workshop convened in March 2010 and finalized in September 2011. RESULTS We identified 17 composite score instruments with published validation information; all had comparable content. Eight instruments demonstrated responsiveness over time; 3 demonstrated responsiveness to treatment. A minimal clinically important difference has been established for 3 instruments. The instruments have demographic limitations; some are proprietary, and their use could be limited by cost. CONCLUSION Two asthma composite score instruments are sufficiently validated for use in adult populations, but additional research is necessary to validate their use in nonwhite populations. Gaps also exist in validating instruments for pediatric populations.

Combination therapy with inhaled long-acting β2-Agonists and inhaled corticosteroids: A paradigm shift in asthma management

Long‐acting inhaled β2‐Agonists and inhaled corticosteroids are classes of drugs with different mechanisms of action that are commonly used to provide effective long‐term control of persistent asthma. Scientific and clinical data support the complementary mechanisms of action of the inhaled corticosteroids and the long‐acting β2‐Agonists in achieving a superior level of asthma control. In addition, evidence supports significant reductions in exacerbations and effective control of airway inflammation with an inhaled corticosteroid and a long‐acting β2‐Agonist versus higher dosages of inhaled corticosteroids or combinations of other therapeutic agents with an inhaled corticosteroid. Finally, there are distinct economic advantages to combining an inhaled corticosteroid and a long‐acting β2‐Agonist in the treatment of asthma relative to other treatment regimens.

Is there a role for aerosol nasal sprays in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a white paper.

This White Paper presents the Consensus Statements derived from a Special Issues Board (SIB) held in Chicago, IL, in October 2010. The SIB was convened to address the question of whether there is a need for both aerosol and aqueous intranasal steroids (INSs) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The faculty reviewed the published record of efficacy and safety of aerosol and aqueous INSs, as well as patient and physician satisfaction and preferences for currently available INSs, and burden of disease. Agreement on unmet needs also included the practice experience of the faculty and their colleagues. The body of evidence indicates that INSs are equally effective and well tolerated for most patients. However, differences exist among current aqueous formulations as well as between these products and their aerosol antecedents, based on the properties of the nasal spray. Aerosol formulations, although no longer available, may be preferred for some patients with specific pathophysiology and may be preferred by some patients based on sensory perception. There are good reasons to expand the currently available options of INSs by having both aerosol and aqueous formulations.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Megatrials: Taking the Results into Office Practice

Primary care specialists provide first-line care of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), characterized by progressive, partially reversible airflow limitation induced mainly by smoking. Spirometry and questionnaires are important for COPD diagnosis, staging and prognosis. Smoking cessation, immunizations, pulmonary rehabilitation and self-management action plans comprise nonpharmacologic COPD management. The Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) and Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) megatrials provide evidence for maintenance pharmacotherapy to reduce exacerbations and improve patient symptoms and health-related quality of life. Although the primary outcomes—lung function decline (UPLIFT®) and mortality (TORCH)—were negative, long-acting bronchodilators in both trials reduced exacerbation rates and improved health status. Tiotropium added to usual care (in UPLIFT®) and salmeterol/fluticasone therapy (in TORCH) improved key patient-centered outcomes with no significant mortality risk or excess in serious cardiac adverse events associated with the study drugs. These results provide strong evidence of efficacy and acceptable safety profiles of maintenance pharmacotherapies in patient-centered outcomes and support combination drug regimens in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

Assessing Asthma Symptoms in Adolescents and Adults: Qualitative Research Supporting Development of the Asthma Daily Symptom Diary

BACKGROUND Despite the widespread availability of patient-reported asthma questionnaires, instruments developed in accordance with present regulatory expectations are lacking. To address this gap, the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortiums Asthma Working Group has developed a patient-reported asthma daily symptom diary (ADSD) for use in clinical research to assess outcomes and support medical product labeling claims in adults and adolescents with asthma. OBJECTIVES To summarize the qualitative research conducted to inform the initial development of the ADSD and to provide evidence for content validity of the instrument in accordance with the Food and Drug Administrations PRO Guidance. METHODS Research informing the initial development and confirming the content validity of the ADSD is summarized. This comprised a review of published qualitative research, semi-structured concept elicitation interviews (n = 55), and cognitive interviews (n = 65) with a diverse and representative sample of adults and adolescents with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of asthma in the United States to understand the asthma symptom experience and to assess the relevance and understanding of the newly developed ADSD. RESULTS From the qualitative literature review and concept elicitation interviews, eight core asthma symptoms emerged. These were broadly categorized as breathing symptoms (difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, and wheezing), chest symptoms (chest tightness, chest pain, and pressure/weight on chest), and cough symptoms (cough and the presence of mucus/phlegm). Conceptual saturation was achieved and differences in the experience of participants according to socio-demographic or clinical characteristics were not observed. Subsequent testing of the ADSD confirmed participant relevance and understanding. CONCLUSIONS The ADSD is a new patient-reported asthma symptom diary developed in accordance with the Food and Drug Administrations PRO Guidance. Evidence to date supports the content validity of the instrument. Item performance, reliability, and construct validity will be assessed in future quantitative research.

exercise-induced bronchospasm: implications for patients with or without asthma in primary care practice

Exercise-induced bronchospasm (EIB) can represent a substantial barrier to physical activity. We present the cases of two patients with EIB, one with asthma, and one without asthma, who were evaluated at our primary care practice. The first case was a 44-year-old man with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis but no asthma, who reported difficulty breathing when playing tennis. The second case was a 45-year-old woman who presented with persistent, generally well-controlled asthma, who was now experiencing bouts of coughing and wheezing during exercise. In both cases, an exercise challenge was used to diagnose EIB, and patients were prescribed a short-acting beta agonist to be used immediately before initiating exercise. EIB is a frequently encountered problem among patients presenting to primary care specialists. Affected patients should be made aware of the importance of proactive treatment with a short-acting beta agonist before initiating any exercise.