Outcomes of stepping down asthma medications in a guideline-based pediatric asthma management program

Treatment patterns among non-active users of maintenance asthma medication in the United Kingdom: a retrospective cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Objective: To describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and healthcare utilization (HCU) of non-active users of maintenance asthma medications in the United Kingdom.Methods: Retrospective, cohort analysis of patients with asthma, aged ≥ 6 years who were non-active users of maintenance therapy (no prescription for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), combined ICS/long-acting beta agonists (ICS/LABA) or 'other' bronchodilatory therapies in last 12 months) were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2012-2015) and followed-up for 2 years after a new prescription for an asthma maintenance medication (index date). Patient characteristics, most common maintenance treatment sequences and HCU were described.Results: 55,293 patients were identified (ICS: 46,297, ICS/LABA: 8,367; Other: 629). Mean age was 37 years and 56% were female. During follow-up, the most common treatment sequences across groups implied intermittent use, comprising periods of maintenance therapy interspersed with maintenance-free periods. During year 1 and year 2 of follow-up, the proportion of patients prescribed OCS was 19% and 13%, prescribed ≥ 4 short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) was 24% and 19%, having ≥ 3 asthma-related primary care consultations/year was 59% and 36% and experiencing ≥ 1 exacerbation/year was 15% and 11%, respectively.Conclusions: In previously non-active users of asthma maintenance medication subsequently commenced on maintenance therapy, intermittent use was common during the 2-year follow-up despite the potential need for regular use as evidenced by patient HCU and SABD usage patterns. This highlights the need for regular patient assessment and education on medication adherence to ensure appropriateness of prescribing to maintain asthma control.

Shared Care for Patients with Diabetes at Risk of Retinopathy: A Feasibility Trial

Purpose:

While diabetes is a chronic disease, in many health care systems patients with diabetes at risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) are managed in hospital settings. Aim of this feasibility study is to assess the quality of care and economic benefits of a shared care model managing patients at risk of DR in a primary eye care clinic (PEC) compared with a current tertiary specialist outpatient clinic (SOC).

Methods:

A randomized trial was performed, to compare a PEC with a SOC in Singapore. The trial patients included those previously seen at the SOC, and having no DR or stable mild non proliferative (NPDR) with no macular edema, no visual and DR deterioration. Primary outcomes were clinical management. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and cost of consultation. Differences analysis used equivalence testing and generalized odds ratios (GOR).

Results:

The trial included 231 patients, 83.1% classified as no DR (PEC: 79.1%; SOC: 87.1%) and 16.9% as stable mild NPDR (PEC: 20.9%; SOC: 12.9%). DR management at PEC was significantly equivalent to that received at the SOC (rate difference 2.56%; CI: (–1.61% to 6.74%)) and 4.29%; CI: (0.14%–8.45%), respectively. Patient satisfaction at the PEC was equally high when compared to SOC (GOR: 1.71; CI: (0.50–2.00)). Direct costs per patient visit was 45% lower at PEC compared to SOC.

Conclusions:

Our feasibility trial showed that patients with diabetes with no or stable DR receive similar clinical care and management at a lower-cost PEC setting, are equally satisfied with the service compared to tertiary eye care. A follow-up study is necessary to validate these findings. Managing patients with diabetes at risk of DR at a PEC may be a safe and effective shared care model to improve accessibility for patients while enhancing professional collaboration between hospital and community settings.

Shared Cared for Stable Glaucoma Patients: Economic Benefits and Patient-centered Outcomes of a Feasibility Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to assess the quality of care and economic benefits of a shared care model managing patients with stable glaucoma in a primary eye care (PEC) clinic compared with a tertiary specialist outpatient clinic (SOC) in Singapore.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized equivalence feasibility trial was preformed comparing the PEC with SOC models. Participants recruited from the SOC had no visual field progression or change in management for at least 3 years, were on a maximum of a single glaucoma medication, had no previous tube-shunt implant and were at least 3-year posttrabeculectomy surgery.Primary outcomes were clinical assessment and management, economic benefits, and patient satisfaction. Differences were analyzed using equivalence testing and generalized odds ratios.

RESULTS

The trial included 233 patients, consisting of 42.1% glaucoma disc suspects (PEC: 47.4%; SOC: 36.8%), 27.5% primary angle closure suspects (PEC: 25.0%; SOC: 29.9%), 13.7% with ocular hypertension (PEC: 13.8%; SOC: 13.7%), 3.9% with primary angle closure glaucoma (PEC: 4.3%; SOC: 3.4%), and 3.0% with primary open angle glaucoma (PEC: 1.7%; SOC: 4.3%). Glaucoma clinical care for patients at PEC was as good as SOC [rate difference, 6.83%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.84-11.12) and management (rate difference, 7.69%; 95% CI, 3.21-12.17). In 23 cases (9.9%), 5.2% at PEC and 14.5% at SOC, there was disconcordance with the gold standard of senior consultant. Patient satisfaction at the PEC was equally high when compared with SOC (generalized odds ratio, 1.43; CI, 0.50-2.00). Direct costs per patient visit were 43% lower at PEC compared with SOC.

CONCLUSION

Managing stable glaucoma patients at a primary care setting is a cost saving, safe, and effective shared care while enhancing professional collaboration between hospital and community settings.

The Asthma Controller Step-down Yardstick

Asthma guidelines recommend a control-based approach to disease management in which the assessment of impairment and risk is linked to step-based therapy. Using this model, controller treatment is adjusted-upward or downward-according to a patient's level of asthma control over time. Strategies for stepping up controller therapy are well described, and the adult and pediatric Asthma Yardsticks provide operational recommendations based on patient profiles. Strategies for stepping down controller treatment are less clear, although stepping down to the minimum effective therapy is important and should be considered when a patient's asthma has been well controlled for an adequate period as defined by risk and impairment. This Yardstick presents recommendations for when and how to step down asthma controller therapy according to guideline-defined control levels. The objective is to provide clinicians who treat patients with asthma with a practical and clinically relevant framework for implementing a step-down in controller therapy.

A Simple Score for Future Risk Prediction in Patients with Controlled Asthma Who Undergo a Guidelines-Based Step-Down Strategy

BACKGROUND

The minimum controlling dose of treatment must be established in patients with asthma, but the outcome of step-down is unpredictable.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with risk of control loss when stepping down asthma treatment and to develop a score to predict this risk.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter study including adults with well-controlled asthma was performed. Treatment was stepped up or stepped down over a 12-month period to maintain asthma control. We determined associations between clinical and functional variables and step-down failure. Finally, we derived a score to predict loss of control in 1 cohort and validated it in an independent cohort.

RESULTS

The derivation cohort consisted of 228 patients; 218 completed at least 1 step-down episode and a total of 495 step-down episodes were evaluated. A medical-record documented postbronchodilator spirometry result of <70% forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-3.43), current FEV₁ < 80% (OR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.03-3.14), ≥1 severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.48-4.01), and Asthma Control Test score < 25 (OR = 2.30; 95% CI: 1.35-3.92) were independently associated with failure. The score showed an area under the curve of 0.690 (95% CI: 0.633-0.747; P < .05) in the derivation cohort and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.643-0.882; P < .001) in a validation cohort of 114 patients. A score <4.5 implies a low risk of failure (<20%), whereas a score >8 implies a high risk (>40%).

CONCLUSION

This score can facilitate the prediction of step-down failure before medication taper in patients with well-controlled asthma.

Step-up and step-down treatments for optimal asthma control in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE

To review therapeutic options for stepwise management of pediatric asthma in the context of this population's unique needs such as potential effects of asthma, treatments, or both on growth and psychosocial development, and caregiver involvement.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

We conducted PubMed searches to identify relevant articles then reviewed resultant articles, guidelines for asthma management in children, and articles from personal files.

RESULTS

Stepwise management of asthma, similar to adults, is recommended for children in current global and US guidelines. Treatment may be stepped up or stepped down temporarily or long-term based on response over time. Inhaled corticosteroids remain the recommended treatment for persistent childhood asthma and any potential small effects on growth are considered relatively minor compared with their benefit. Controller medication options for patients <18 years old are limited, especially for Global Initiative for Asthma Steps 2-5. The long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist tiotropium (Steps 4/5, patients aged ≥12 years) and in certain circumstances (Step 5), anti-immunoglobulin E (aged ≥6 years) and interleukin-5 antibodies (aged ≥12 years) are newer treatment options. Tiotropium is indicated in the United States and Europe for patients ≥6 years old. Stepping down treatment, which is recommended but infrequently practiced, can maintain symptom control and minimize adverse events while substantially reducing costs. Patient education and better monitoring remain important for self-management and optimum outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A need exists to target individual treatment goals for children with asthma by using step-up and step-down approaches to maximize treatment benefits and minimize potential adverse effects.

Development and validation of a predictive model of failed stepping-down of inhaled corticosteroids in adult asthmatics

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines suggest stepping-down of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) when asthma is stable.

OBJECTIVE

To determine outcomes of stepping-down and prediction of outcome after stepping-down of ICSs in controlled adult asthma.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on 21-81 year-old hospital-based outpatients with asthma in Japan. Protocol for stepping-down of ICSs was performed according to the GINA guideline. Failure/success of stepping-down is judged as occurring exacerbation or not for stepping-down of ICSs. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to develop a prediction model for failed stepping-down, and then was validated by the leave-one-out cross-validation method. Our model of prediction score was calculated using receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis. The Nelson-Aalen curve demonstrated time to failure of stepping-down of ICSs.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients with asthma attempted the stepping-down of ICSs according to the guideline. Of patients with follow-up, 97 (77.0%) of stepping-down attempts were successful. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, comorbidity with rhinitis/rhinosinusitis and phlegm grade were independent predictors of failed stepping-down of ICSs, with odds ratios of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-13.3; P=0.04) and 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-11.5; P=0.04), respectively. These variables were then used to build a prediction score in terms of the prediction of failed stepping-down events. When the two variables were added to form the prediction score, the discriminative power of scores calculated by the prediction model using the AUC was 0.75 (range: 0.62-0.88) for naïve prediction and 0.72 (range: 0.60-0.86) after cross-validation. In the time-to-failure models, cumulative hazard ratio of failed stepping-down have fixed 1 year after stepping-down.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that comorbidity with rhinitis/rhinosinusitis and phlegm grade are imperative to predict failed stepping-down of ICSs in controlled patients with adult asthma.

Asthma-associated comorbidities in children with and without secondhand smoke exposure

BACKGROUND

Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is known to trigger asthma, but asthma disease severity and comorbidities in children exposed to SHS are not very well quantified.

OBJECTIVE

To identify comorbidities and understand health care usage in children with asthma exposed to SHS (cases) compared with children with asthma but without SHS exposure (controls).

METHODS

A retrospective nested matched case-and-control study was conducted with children 5 to 18 years old who were enrolled in the Pediatric Asthma Management Program. Pulmonary function testing (spirometry, methacholine challenges, and exhaled nitric oxide) and body mass index were reviewed. Influenza vaccination rates, oral steroid usage, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were assessed. Network analysis of the 2 groups also was conducted to evaluate for any associations between the variables.

RESULTS

Cases had significantly higher body mass index percentiles (>75%, odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.2, P = .001). Cases were less likely to have had a methacholine challenge (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.68, P < .001) and an exhaled nitric oxide (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.37-0.97, P = .04) performed than controls. The ratio of forced expiration volume in 1 second to forced vital capacity and forced expiration volume in 1 second were lower in cases than in controls (P < .05). Cases were less likely to have received an influenza vaccination (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.82, P = .001) than controls. Unsupervised multivariable network analysis suggested a lack of discrete and unique subgroups between cases and controls.

CONCLUSION

Children with asthma exposed to SHS are more likely to have comorbid conditions such as obesity, more severe asthma, and less health care usage than those not exposed to SHS. Smoking cessation interventions and addressing health disparities could be crucial in this vulnerable population.

Assessing the risks and benefits of step-down asthma care: a case-based approach

Guidelines have called for pharmacologic stepped care to improve asthma treatment. Therapeutic options which have been approved provide physicians and their patients alternatives for stepping up asthma treatment to achieve control. However, few studies have been performed to identify and characterize procedures for optimal stepping-down treatment in patients with asthma. The resulting uncertainty as well as a lack of prioritization for asthma reassessment once control has been maintained has led to a lack of well-defined procedures for stepping down asthma treatment. However, recent studies provide guidance regarding the risks of stepping down asthma medications. This review uses case-based examples to demonstrate how health care providers may engage patients in discussions regarding guideline recommendations to promote individualized asthma care.

Stepping down inhaled corticosteroids from scheduled to as needed in stable asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with asthma are potentially overtreated, which results in unnecessary cost and unnecessary exposure to drugs that may result in adverse events. Step down helps reduce overtreatment, may mitigate these harms, and is advocated by major guidelines. Unfortunately, data that support step down are sparse.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to examine the effect of stepping down from scheduled inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to as-needed ICS in patients with stable asthma.

METHODS

Several electronic databases were systematically searched in April 2014. Articles were screened independently in duplicate. Studies were required to have at least a 12-week follow-up duration and to have compared stepping down from scheduled ICS to as-needed ICS and maintenance of scheduled ICS. Patients were required to have stable asthma as evidenced by at least 4 weeks without asthma exacerbation before intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 3025 abstracts were retrieved initially, 77 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. Of these, only two articles were found to be eligible for inclusion, both were randomized controlled trials. By using random effects meta-analysis, it was determined that, after a follow-up of 6-10 months, the relative risk of exacerbation of stepping down from scheduled to as-needed ICS was 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-2.16; p = 0.27, I(2) = 0%). Those who did not step down had more symptom-free days (standard mean difference 0.26 [95% CI, 0.02-0.49; p = 0.03; I(2) = 22%]).

CONCLUSION

There is currently insufficient evidence to associate stepping down from scheduled to as-needed ICS with a change in exacerbations, although it may lead to fewer symptom-free days.

Personalized medicine in children with asthma

Personalized medicine for children with asthma aims to provide a tailored management of asthma, which leads to faster and better asthma control, has less adverse events and may be cost saving. Several patient characteristics, lung function parameters and biomarkers have been shown useful in predicting treatment response or predicting successful reduction of asthma medication. As treatment response to the main asthma therapies is partly genetically determined, pharmacogenetics may open the way for personalized medicine in children with asthma. However, the number of genes identified for the various asthma drug response phenotypes remains small and randomized controlled trials are lacking. Biomarkers in exhaled breath or breath condensate remain promising but did not find their way from bench to bedside yet, except for the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide. E-health will most likely find its way to clinical practice and most interventions are at least non-inferior to usual care. More studies are needed on which interventions will benefit most individual children.

Evaluation of Diverse Community Asthma Interventions: Balancing Health Outcomes with Developing Community Capacity for Evidence-Based Program Measurement

The challenge of evaluating community asthma management programs is complicated by balancing the emphasis on health outcomes with the need to build community process capacity for conducting and monitoring evidence-based programs. The evaluation of a Georgia Childhood Asthma Management Program, a Healthcare Georgia Foundation-supported initiative for multiple diverse programs and settings, provides an example of an approach and the results that address this challenge. A "developmental evaluation" approach was applied, using mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, to assess the progress of community asthma prevention programs in building community within the context of: where the community is starting, community-level systems changes, and the community's progress toward becoming more outcome measurement oriented and evidence based. Initial evaluation efforts revealed extensive mobilization of community assets to manage childhood asthma. However, there were minimal planned efforts to assess health outcomes and systems changes, and the lack of a logic model-based program design linking evidence-based practices to outcomes. Following developmental technical assistance within evaluation efforts, all programs developed logic models, linking practices to outcomes with data collection processes to assess progress toward achieving the selected outcomes. This developmental approach across diverse projects and communities, along with a quality improvement benchmarking approach to outcomes, created a focus on health status outcome improvement. Specifically, this approach complemented an emphasis on an improved community process capacity to identify, implement, and monitor evidence-based asthma practices that could be used within each community setting.

Advances in pediatric asthma in 2013: coordinating asthma care

Last year's "Advances in pediatric asthma: moving toward asthma prevention" concluded that "We are well on our way to creating a pathway around wellness in asthma care and also to utilize new tools to predict the risk for asthma and take steps to not only prevent asthma exacerbations but also to prevent the early manifestations of the disease and thus prevent its evolution to severe asthma." This year's summary will focus on recent advances in pediatric asthma on prenatal and postnatal factors altering the natural history of asthma, assessment of asthma control, and new insights regarding potential therapeutic targets for altering the course of asthma in children, as indicated in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology publications in 2013 and early 2014. Recent reports continue to shed light on methods to understand factors that influence the course of asthma, methods to assess and communicate levels of control, and new targets for intervention, as well as new immunomodulators. It will now be important to carefully assess risk factors for the development of asthma, as well as the risk for asthma exacerbations, and to improve the way we communicate this information in the health care system. This will allow parents, primary care physicians, specialists, and provider systems to more effectively intervene in altering the course of asthma and to further reduce asthma morbidity and mortality.

The risks, benefits, and uncertainties of stepping down asthma medications

Stepwise adjustments have been suggested as a framework to manage chronic asthma over time. In this framework, individuals with good asthma control and a low risk for future asthma exacerbations may be considered for a reduction or "step down" of their chronic asthma medications. In this article, we discuss how patients may benefit or be harmed by stepping down asthma medications. Based on the literature presented in this article, we recommend that clinicians discuss the option of stepping down with patients when symptoms are stable, lung function is near normal, and biomarkers (if measured) are near normal. Other factors that should be considered in the decision to step down include the length of asthma stability, age of the patient, time of year, and patient preferences. Reducing the dose of inhaled corticosteroid by 25% to 50% appears to be the safest method of stepping down. A clear plan of care and follow-up is needed when stepping down asthma medications because many patients are likely to have recurrent exacerbations.