Stepping down from combination asthma therapy: The predictors of outcome

A prediction model for asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the prediction of the risks of asthma exacerbation after stopping asthma biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics using machine learning models.

METHODS

We identified 3057 people with asthma who stopped asthma biologics in the OptumLabs Database Warehouse and considered a wide range of demographic and clinical risk factors to predict subsequent outcomes. The primary outcome used to assess success after stopping was having no exacerbations in the 6 months after stopping the biologic. Elastic-net logistic regression (GLMnet), random forest, and gradient boosting machine models were used with 10-fold cross-validation within a development (80%) cohort and validation cohort (20%).

RESULTS

The mean age of the total cohort was 47.1 (SD, 17.1) years, 1859 (60.8%) were women, 2261 (74.0%) were White, and 1475 (48.3%) were in the Southern region of the United States. The elastic-net logistic regression model yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78) in the development and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The random forest model yielded an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The gradient boosting machine model yielded an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.74 in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes after stopping asthma biologics can be predicted with moderate accuracy using machine learning methods.

Exacerbations of asthma following step-up and step-down inhaled corticosteroid and long acting beta agonist therapy in the managing asthma in pregnancy study

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines for asthma management contain a consensus recommendation that inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose should not be stepped down in pregnancy. However, this is not consistent with consumer preferences and pharmacological principles to minimize medication exposure during pregnancy. We investigated exacerbations after changes to ICS and long acting beta agonist (LABA) therapy in pregnant women with asthma.

METHODS

Pregnant women (n = 220) were recruited to a randomized controlled trial (RCT) where maintenance treatment was adjusted monthly based on either symptoms (control group), or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO, to alter ICS) and symptoms (to alter LABA, FeNO group). Exacerbations were monitored prospectively.

RESULTS

ICS were used by 137 (62.3%) women at some time during pregnancy. ICS dose remained unchanged in 16 women (11.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7-18%), increased in 37 women (27%, 95%CI 20-35%), decreased in 34 women (24.8%, 95%CI 18%-33%), or both increased and decreased in 50 women (36.5%, 95%CI 29-45%). Exacerbations occurred within 14 days of ICS step-down in 11 women (13%, 95%CI 7.5%-22%). This was not significantly different from exacerbations occurring within 14 days of step-up, in 7 women (8.1%, 95%CI 4%-16%, P = 0.294). There were no differences between management groups. Exacerbations occurred within 14 days of step-down in 14.7% (95%CI 7%-30%) of women in the control group, and in 12% (95%CI 6%-24%) of women in the FENO group.

CONCLUSIONS

ICS step-down could be considered when eosinophilic inflammation or symptoms are low, and may be a useful management approach for women, doctors, and midwives wishing to minimize ICS exposure during pregnancy.

Cough-provocation tests with hypertonic aerosols

Recent advances in cough research suggest a more widespread use of cough-provocation tests to demonstrate the hypersensitivity of the cough reflex arc. Cough-provocation tests with capsaicin or acidic aerosols have been used for decades in scientific studies. Several factors have hindered their use in everyday clinical work: i.e. lack of standardisation, the need for special equipment and the limited clinical importance of the response. Cough-provocation tests with hypertonic aerosols (CPTHAs) involve provocations with hypertonic saline, hypertonic histamine, mannitol and hyperpnoea. They probably act via different mechanisms than capsaicin and acidic aerosols. They are safe and well tolerated and the response is repeatable. CPTHAs can assess not only the sensitivity of the cough reflex arc but also the tendency of the airway smooth muscles to constrict (airway hyper-responsiveness). They can differentiate between subjects with asthma or chronic cough and healthy subjects. The responsiveness to CPTHAs correlates with the cough-related quality of life among asthmatic subjects. Furthermore, the responsiveness to them decreases during treatment of chronic cough. A severe response to CPTHAs may indicate poor long-term prognosis in chronic cough. The mannitol test has been stringently standardised, is easy to administer with simple equipment, and has regulatory approval for the assessment of airway hyper-responsiveness. Manual counting of coughs during a mannitol challenge would allow the measurement of the function of the cough reflex arc as a part of clinical routine.

Cough-provocation tests with hypertonic aerosols offer the possibility to measure the function of the cough reflex arc even in everyday clinical workhttp://bit.ly/2RTOfMI

2020 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of asthma

The pharmacological management of asthma has changed considerably in recent decades, as it has come to be understood that it is a complex, heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes and endotypes. It is now clear that the goal of asthma treatment should be to achieve and maintain control of the disease, as well as to minimize the risks (of exacerbations, disease instability, accelerated loss of lung function, and adverse treatment effects). That requires an approach that is personalized in terms of the pharmacological treatment, patient education, written action plan, training in correct inhaler use, and review of the inhaler technique at each office visit. A panel of 22 pulmonologists was invited to perform a critical review of recent evidence of pharmacological treatment of asthma and to prepare this set of recommendations, a treatment guide tailored to use in Brazil. The topics or questions related to the most significant changes in concepts, and consequently in the management of asthma in clinical practice, were chosen by a panel of experts. To formulate these recommendations, we asked each expert to perform a critical review of a topic or to respond to a question, on the basis of evidence in the literature. In a second phase, three experts discussed and structured all texts submitted by the others. That was followed by a third phase, in which all of the experts reviewed and discussed each recommendation. These recommendations, which are intended for physicians involved in the treatment of asthma, apply to asthma patients of all ages.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Long-term Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis- Current Concepts and Perspectives for Steroid Use

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus, which requires short- and long-term treatment. In addition, patients under long-term treatment for any chronic condition should have a structured follow-up. The mainstays in EoE treatment are drugs (such as swallowed topical corticosteroids [STC] and proton pump inhibitors), dietary exclusions, and endoscopic dilations. STC are the most widely used treatment and have proven efficacy in inducing clinical, endoscopic and histological remission in active EoE. However, data regarding maintaining disease remission and long-term management are limited. Ongoing disease activity and relapses despite STC treatment are frequently observed. This sheds light on the urgent need for adequate maintenance strategies, which have not been well defined. In terms of follow-up concepts, to date neither guidelines nor consensus recommendations have been published. To summarize the current knowledge on long-term diagnostic and therapeutic STC management of EoE, we conducted a literature search using PubMed and Embase applying the following key search items: Eosinophilic esophagitis, eosinophils, esophagus, swallowed topical corticosteroids, fluticasone, budesonide, long-term, treatment, therapy, and follow-up. In addition, we present empirically developed long-term management concepts applied at two large EoE centers, with a special focus on STC treatments. Finally, we highlight areas of future research and perspectives regarding the long-term management of EoE.

Factors that determine the loss of control when reducing therapy by steps in the treatment of moderate-severe asthma in standard clinical practice: A multicentre Spanish study

BACKGROUND

Although the clinical practice guidelines recommend continuous adjustment of asthma treatment and reducing the maintenance drugs when achieving control (step-down), there are few studies of standard clinical practice aimed at collecting information on the factors that determine step-down failure.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the factors that determine step-down failure in standard clinical practice of patients with moderate-severe asthma controlled by a combination of inhaled glucocorticoids and long-acting beta agonists.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective study included 374 patients with moderate-severe asthma controlled with inhaled glucocorticoids and long-acting beta agonists for whom the physician indicated a step-down in 2016.

RESULTS

The step-down failed in 41.7% of the patients. The following factors were related to failure: greater patient age (P=.006), presence of at least 2 comorbidities (P=.016), greater severity level (severe persistent vs. moderate persistent) (P<.001), greater age at diagnosis (>40 years) (P=.045), the higher the therapeutic step before (P=.003) and after the change (P<.001), the shorter the time of improvement/control prior to the change (P=.019), lower FEV₁ (P=.001) and a poorer Asthma Control Test score or Asthma Control Questionnaire score before the step-down (P<.001). The logistic regression analysis showed a higher probability of step-down failure in the more elderly patients (OR, 0.983; 95% CI 0.969-0.997) and those with severe asthma compared to those with moderate asthma (OR, 0.537; 95% CI 0.292-0.985), as well as an increased probability of success if the patients had the disease controlled for more than 6 months (OR, 2.253; 95% CI 1.235-4.112).

CONCLUSION

In standard clinical practice conditions, step-down fails in a high percentage of patients, and the suggestion is to indicate step-down when the patient has had more than 6 months of disease control.

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-Down Therapy for Asthma Well Controlled on Inhaled Corticosteroid and Long-Acting Beta-Agonist: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Stepping down therapy when asthma is well controlled on combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) is recommended, but it is not known whether lowering the ICS dose or stopping LABA is superior.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether step-down therapy with LABA is superior to one without; and, secondarily, to evaluate whether reducing the ICS dose while maintaining LABA is noninferior to remaining on stable-ICS/LABA.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, double-masked 3-arm parallel group trial in participants aged 12 years or older. Following an 8-week run-in, 459 participants were randomly assigned to continue medium-dose ICS/LABA, reduced-dose ICS/LABA, or ICS alone (LABA-step-off) and followed for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, a composite of health care utilization, systemic corticosteroid use, increase in rescue therapy, decline in lung function, or participant or physician decision.

RESULTS

Time to treatment failure did not differ significantly between reduced- ICS/LABA and LABA-step-off (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95.3% CI, 0.69-1.65, P = .76). Nor was there a difference between stable-ICS/LABA and reduced-ICS/LABA (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70-1.76; P = .67), but the 10% noninferiority margin was exceeded. Lung function declines and hospitalization rates were significantly greater in the LABA-step-off group.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 step-down regimens did not differ in terms of treatment failure, although stopping LABA was associated with a decline in lung function and more hospitalizations. There was no evidence to support the noninferiority of reduced-ICS/LABA as compared with stable-ICS/LABA.