The level of diagnostic assessment in severe asthma: A nationwide real-life study

Integrating digital inhalers into clinical care of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Modernizing inhaled medications through digital technology can help address persistent problems of non-adherence and poor inhaler technique in patients with obstructive lung diseases. With a growing body of supportive clinical studies, advances in digital inhaler sensors and platforms, greater support from payers and healthcare organizations, significant growth with these technologies is expected. While all digital (smart) inhalers record adherence, these are distinguished by their compatibility with commercial inhalers, capabilities to guide inhaler technique, use of patient-reported outcomes, and user-friendliness for both the healthcare professional (HCP) and patient. Due to the complexity and novelty of employing digital inhalers, collaboration with multiple entities within health systems is necessary and a well-planned integration is needed. For HCPs and patients, cybersecurity and privacy are critical, it will require review by each healthcare organization. In the US, some payers reimburse for remote monitoring using digital inhalers, but reimbursement is currently unavailable in other countries. There are several models for remote patient care, as employing an active, ongoing digital interface between the HCP and patient or they may choose to only review data at clinical encounters. Personalization of therapies and feedback are key to success. While digital inhaler malfunction uncommonly occurs, patient attrition over a year is significant. Some patients will be challenged to use digital platforms or have the necessary technology. Additional research is needed to address cost-effectiveness, in vivo accuracy of inspiratory measurement capable devices, ability to teach inhaler technique, their application for monitoring lung function, and lastly real-world adoption and implementation in routine clinical practice.

Digital Inhalers and Remote Patient Monitoring for Asthma

Digital inhaler systems, remote patient monitoring, and remote therapeutic monitoring offer great promise as diagnostic tools and therapeutic interventions to improve adherence and inhaler technique for patients with difficult-to-control asthma. In turn, improvements in adherence and inhaler technique may translate into decreasing the need for high side effect treatments such as oral corticosteroids and costly therapies including biologics. Although more clinical trials are needed, studies that use digital inhaler systems to collect objective real-time data on medication-taking behavior via electronic medication monitors and feed this data back to patients on their mobile asthma app, and to health care professionals on the clinician dashboard to counsel patients, show positive outcomes. This article addresses the use of these diagnostic and therapeutic tools in asthma care, how to choose a digital inhaler system, how to teach patients to use the system, strategies for the adoption of these technologies in large health care systems as well as smaller practices, coding and reimbursement, liability concerns, and research gaps.

Using a knowledge translation framework to identify health care professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers for personalised severe asthma care

Background

Whilst multidimensional assessment enables the detection of treatable traits in severe asthma and has the potential to improve patient outcomes, healthcare disparities exist, and little is known about the factors influencing optimal management in severe asthma. This study aimed to explore perceived barriers, and enablers to implementing personalised care in severe asthma, from the healthcare professionals’ perspective.

Methods

A descriptive, qualitative study involving a single focus group (n = 7) and semi-structured interviews (n = 33) with multidisciplinary healthcare professionals involved in severe asthma care was conducted. A hybrid thematic and content analysis was undertaken to identify themes, which were then deductively mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results

Overall, three emergent themes were identified: (1) Barriers- (2) Enablers- to optimal management; (3) Desired model of care. Across all TDF domains, 6 constructs influenced development and implementation of optimal care: (1) belief about consequences, (2) environmental context and resources, (3) belief about capabilities, (4) social/professional role and identity, (5) goals and (6) knowledge.

Conclusion

Implementation of personalised care in severe asthma is complex and non-linear. The use of a theory-based approach effectively demonstrated how a variety of behaviours could be targeted to optimise and promote personalised care in different clinical setting.

Objective confirmation of asthma diagnosis, treatment adherence and patient outcomes in children and adolescents

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic workup in children with asthma hypothesising that objective confirmation of the diagnosis is associated with improved treatment adherence and patient outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of children aged 5-18 years diagnosed with asthma at the Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Denmark, in 2018. Objective confirmation of the diagnosis was based on either (1) lung function, (2) bronchodilator response, (3) bronchial hyperresponsiveness and/or (4) elevated FeNO and was associated with treatment adherence (proportion of days covered, PDC), lung function development and exacerbations during a two-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 88 children were included. Asthma was objectively confirmed in 67 (76%). Children with objective confirmation of the diagnosis were more likely to redeem short-acting beta-2-agonist prescriptions: at least once, aOR = 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-13.1), p = 0.036, and were more adherent to inhaled corticosteroid treatment: PDC>80%, aOR = 10.4 (1.8-201.1), p = 0.033. Further, objective confirmation was associated with improved lung function and reduced bronchodilator response, but not with exacerbations.

CONCLUSION

Objective confirmation of the asthma diagnosis in children is associated with an increased treatment adherence and improved lung function, which underlines the importance of conducting objective tests in the diagnostic workup in paediatric asthma management.

Diagnosis and Management of Severe Asthma in Switzerland: Analysis of Survey Results Conducted with Specialists and General Practitioners

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma commonly affects 5-10% of the asthmatic population and accounts for approximately 50% of the overall asthma costs.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis investigated how severe asthma is diagnosed, treated, and managed by specialists and general practitioners (GPs) in Switzerland.

METHODS

Two surveys, one each among specialists (N = 44) and GPs (N = 153), were conducted to understand their self-perception on diagnosis, treatment, and management of severe asthma.

RESULTS

Fifty-five percent of the specialists felt very confident and 43% confident in recognizing the symptoms of severe asthma and diagnosing severe asthma. In contrast, 9% of the GPs were very confident and 59% confident in diagnosing severe asthma. More specific diagnostic tests for severe asthma, like total and specific immunoglobulin E levels and measurement of the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, were run by specialists (χ2 = 171.4; df = 15, p < 0.001). GPs and specialists were using different measurements to assess severe asthma (χ2 = 385.2; df = 13, p < 0.001) and their prescribing patterns differed significantly (χ2 = 189.8; df = 10, p < 0.001). GPs referred patients with severe asthma if the diagnosis was unclear (24%), if treatment failure occurred (26%), and if the patients were at high risk (41%).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral corticosteroids (OCSs) are considered as background therapy for severe asthma by GPs and specialists. In order to reduce the OCS burden, there is a need to improve the awareness for other add-on therapies. A joint collaboration between GPs and specialists is the key to leverage therapeutic strategies together.

Difficult and Severe Asthma in Children

Asthma is the most frequent chronic inflammatory disease of the lower airways affecting children, and it can still be considered a challenge for pediatricians. Although most asthmatic patients are symptom-free with standard treatments, a small percentage of them suffer from uncontrolled persistent asthma. In these children, a multidisciplinary systematic assessment, including comorbidities, treatment-related issues, environmental exposures, and psychosocial factors is needed. The identification of modifiable factors is important to differentiate children with difficult asthma from those with true severe therapy-resistant asthma. Early intervention on modifiable factors for children with difficult asthma allows for better control of asthma without the need for invasive investigation and further escalation of treatment. Otherwise, addressing a correct diagnosis of true severe therapy-resistant asthma avoids diagnostic and therapeutic delays, allowing patients to benefit from using new and advanced biological therapies.

Rasmussen L, D. Assing K, Wimmer-Aune A, B. Rasmussen K, Bjerring N, Christiansen A, Schmid J, Krogh NS, Porsbjerg C. The Danish severe asthma register: an electronic platform for severe asthma management and research

The evaluation and management of severe asthma patients require collection of comprehensive information, which is often a challenge in a busy outpatient clinic. The Danish Severe Asthma Register (DSAR) was designed as an electronic patient record form that captures operational clinical data and provides a clinical overview of the severe asthma patient. DSAR is a nationwide register; all patients in Denmark who are treated with biologics for severe asthma are included, and data are as a minimum entered at start of biological treatment, after four and 12 months of treatment, and hereafter annually. Currently, there are data from 621 treatment courses with biologics included in DSAR, with 71% of patients treated with anti-IL-5 drugs and 29% with an anti-IgE drug. Patients enter Patient Reported Outcome Measures electronically on tablets when they arrive in the outpatient clinic and their answers are immediately available to the clinician during the consultation. Nurses and doctors enter clinical data into DSAR during the consultation. DSAR offers immediate access to well-presented longitudinal overview and automatically creates a journal output that can be copy-pasted into the hospital's existing health record form. DSAR is also currently expanding with an app, to be used for monitoring of home-treatment. In addition to serving as an electronic patient record form, DSAR will also provide opportunities to monitor the real-life efficacy of biological treatment for severe asthma in Denmark, and it will be a valuable research platform that will aid in answering important research questions on severe asthma in the future.

Equine Asthma: Current Understanding and Future Directions

The 2019 Havemeyer Workshop brought together researchers and clinicians to discuss the latest information on Equine Asthma and provide future research directions. Current clinical and molecular asthma phenotypes and endotypes in humans were discussed and compared to asthma phenotypes in horses. The role of infectious and non-infectious causes of equine asthma, genetic factors and proposed disease pathophysiology were reviewed. Diagnostic limitations were evident by the limited number of tests and biomarkers available to field practitioners. The participants emphasized the need for more accessible, standardized diagnostics that would help identify specific phenotypes and endotypes in order to create more targeted treatments or management strategies. One important outcome of the workshop was the creation of the Equine Asthma Group that will facilitate communication between veterinary practice and research communities through published and easily accessible guidelines and foster research collaboration.

Causes and Phenotypes of Work-Related Asthma

Work-related asthma (WRA) includes heterogeneous conditions, which have in common (i) symptoms and signs compatible with asthma and (ii) a relationship with exposures in the workplace. The types of WRA described in this review are distinguished by their etiology, comprising of work-exacerbated asthma (WEA), irritant-induced asthma (IIA), and immunologic occupational asthma (OA). There have been significant advances in the definition and characterization of the different forms of WRA by international panels of experts. The present review provides a comprehensive and updated view of the current knowledge on causes and phenotypes of WRA. Health care practitioners should consider WRA in any case of adult asthma, given that one fifth of workers with asthma report symptoms of WEA and it has been estimated that OA represents 10% to 25% of asthma in adulthood. The information provided in this review will facilitate the physician in the recognition of the different forms of WRA, since it has been established that five categories of agents are responsible for at least 60% of WEA cases and seven groups of agents are the cause of 70% of immunologic OA. In addition, there is agreement that IIA can be elicited not only by a single massive irritant exposure, but also by low/moderate repeated irritant exposures.

Systematic Assessment of Difficult-to-Treat Asthma: Principles and Perspectives

Difficult-to-treat asthma affects a minority of adults and children with asthma but represents a challenging mix of misdiagnosis, multimorbidity, inadequate self-management, severe airway pathobiology, and treatment complications. Management of these patients extends beyond asthma pharmacotherapy, because multiple other patient-related domains need to be addressed as well. Such complexity can hinder adequate clinical assessment even when performed in specialist practice. Systematic assessment undertaken by specialized multidisciplinary teams brings a broad range of resources to bear on patients with difficult-to-treat asthma. Although the concept of systematic assessment is not new, practices vary considerably and implementation is not universal. Nevertheless, assessment protocols are already in place in several institutions worldwide, and outcomes after such assessments have been highly encouraging. This review discusses the rationale, components, and benefits of systematic assessment, outlining its clinical utility and the available evidence for improved outcomes. It describes a range of service configurations and assessment approaches, drawing examples from severe asthma centers around the world to highlight common essential elements. It also provides a framework for establishing such services and discusses practical considerations for implementation.

Successful implementation of evidence-based guidelines in a regional emergency department for children presenting with acute asthma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adherence to asthma evidence-based guidelines before and after a quality improvement process.

DESIGN

A controlled trial was conducted at two regional hospitals (intervention and control hospitals). We performed a retrospective pre-intervention audit, followed by a post-intervention audit 1 year after the implementation of evidence-based guidelines.

SETTING

Emergency departments of two neighbouring hospitals serving regional and rural North West Tasmania.

PARTICIPANTS

All children (<18 years) with acute presentation of doctor-diagnosed asthma.

INTERVENTIONS

Implementation of evidence-based guidelines using the National Asthma Council of Australia and the Global Initiative of Asthma guidelines, at the intervention hospital and care as usual at the control hospital.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The main outcome measures were the compliance to evidence-based guidelines, pre- and postintervention at the intervention hospital, compared to the control hospital. The specific outcomes measure included the clinical presentation, management, referral to asthma and allergy clinic, and hospitilisation.

RESULTS

Significantly improved adherence to evidence-based guidelines were noted post-intervention at the intervention hospital, that is severity recorded (21.4%-45.7%, P < 0.001), triggers identified (13.5%-45.3%, P < 0.001), spirometry usage (3.8%-25.8%, P = 0.03) and written action plans (29.7%-58.3%, P < 0.001). There was however no effect on hospitilisation (23.3%-29.8%, P = 0.48). At the control hospital, however, no significant improved adherence to evidence-based guidelines were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based implementation led to improved adherence to evidence-based guidelines across an expanded list of domains in a regional setting.

Managing patients with severe asthma in Australia: Current challenges with the existing models of care

Severe asthma leads to debilitating symptoms for patients and excessive socioeconomic burden for the community. Comprehensive models of care are required to address complex issues, risk factors and comorbidities in patients with severe asthma, and to identify patients most appropriate for specialised treatments. Dedicated severe asthma services improve asthma control, reduce asthma exacerbations and hospital admissions, and improve quality of life. Currently, diverse models of care exist for managing severe asthma across Australia. Most referrals to severe asthma services are from respiratory physicians seeking a second opinion or from primary care for poorly controlled asthma. Despite benefits of specialised severe asthma services, many patients are not referred and resources are limited, often resulting in long waiting times. Patient referral is often unstructured and there are considerable variations in the management of severe asthma with limited access to other health care professionals such as speech pathologists and dieticians, and restricted scope to optimise patient work-up before referral. Ongoing communication between the specialist and referring clinician is essential for continuity of care but is often lacking. Referral pathways can be optimised by developing referral criteria and guidelines to triage patients with severe asthma and to improve resource efficiency. Additional education and tools for assessing and managing severe asthma are needed, and mechanisms should be developed for involving primary care in the management of stabilised patients. Strategies to increase patient access to multidisciplinary services are recommended.

Models of care for severe asthma: the role of primary care

Severe asthma encompasses treatment-refractory asthma and difficult-to-treat asthma. There are a number of barriers in primary, secondary and tertiary settings which compromise optimal care for severe asthma in Australia. Guidelines recommend a multidimensional assessment of severe asthma, which includes confirming the diagnosis, severity and phenotype and identifying and treating comorbidities and risk factors. This approach has been found to improve severe asthma symptoms and quality of life and reduce exacerbations. Primary care providers can contribute significantly to the multidimensional approach for severe asthma by performing spirometry, optimising therapy and addressing risk factors such as non-adherence and smoking before referring the patient to a respiratory physician for review. Primary care practitioners are encouraged to remain engaged with the management of a patient with severe asthma following specialist review by assisting with community-based allied health referrals, managing general medical comorbidities and administering prescribed biological therapies. Specialists can support primary care by providing advice to individuals with indeterminate diagnosis, streamlining investigation and management of unrecognised risk factors and complex comorbidities, optimising treatment for severe or difficult asthma including assessment of suitability for and, if appropriate, initiating advanced therapies such as biological therapies. When discharging patients back to primary care, specialists should provide clear recommendations regarding ongoing management and should specify the indications requiring further specialist review, ideally offering a streamlined re-referral pathway.

Four seasons of Czech asthma study: asthma characteristics and management reality in the Czech Republic

Objective: To describe the characteristics and management of asthma in clinical practice in the Czech Republic in the context of international guidelines and clinical realities.Methods: Data were collected over four seasons from summer 2016 to spring 2017 and are mostly presented using descriptive statistics.Results: We obtained valid data for 4557 adult patients with asthma, including detailed phenotyping (71% eosinophilic allergic, 10% eosinophilic non-allergic, 19% non-eosinophilic non-allergic asthma) from 58 allergologists and 56 pulmonologists. The average time to diagnosis was 3 years. In more than half of the subjects, bronchodilator testing (BDT) results were available at primary diagnosis. More than 10% of physicians did not test for mold allergy. Occupational asthma was diagnosed in 0.7% of subjects. According to the attending physician, 68% of patients had well-controlled and 10% had uncontrolled asthma. Ninety-four percent of patients were on preventive treatment, with 91% using an inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at an average dose of 705 µg/day budesonide equivalent. Approximately 75% of patients were on an ICS/LABA, with 91% using fixed combinations. Among patients using ICS/formoterol, a maintenance and reliever therapy regime was prescribed in 67%.Conclusions: The quality of asthma management in the Czech Republic is comparable to that of other developed countries and better in some respects (frequent BDT, phenotyping, and use of preventive treatment). Nevertheless, there is unnecessary delay in diagnosis and lack of research on possible environmental causes (workplace, molds). Pharmacotherapy shows good adherence to guidelines. Although 10% of patients show poor control, there is concurrently a trend for overtreatment.

Severe Occupational Asthma: Insights From a Multicenter European Cohort

BACKGROUND

Although sensitizer-induced occupational asthma (OA) accounts for an appreciable fraction of adult asthma, the severity of OA has received little attention.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to characterize the burden and determinants of severe OA in a large multicenter cohort of subjects with OA.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 997 subjects with OA ascertained by a positive specific inhalation challenge completed in 20 tertiary centers in 11 European countries during the period 2006 to 2015. Severe asthma was defined by a high level of treatment and any 1 of the following criteria: (1) daily need for a reliever medication, (2) 2 or more severe exacerbations in the previous year, or (3) airflow obstruction.

RESULTS

Overall, 162 (16.2%; 95% CI, 14.0%-18.7%) subjects were classified as having severe OA. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that severe OA was associated with persistent (vs reduced) exposure to the causal agent at work (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 95% CI, 1.50-5.60); a longer duration of the disease (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07); a low level of education (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.73-4.18); childhood asthma (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.13-7.36); and sputum production (OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.87-4.38). In subjects removed from exposure, severe OA was associated only with sputum production (OR, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.87-7.40); a low education level (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.72-6.80); and obesity (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.97-3.97).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that a substantial proportion of subjects with OA experience severe asthma and identifies potentially modifiable risk factors for severe OA that should be targeted to reduce the adverse impacts of the disease.

Efficacy, adverse events, and inter-drug comparison of mepolizumab and reslizumab anti-IL-5 treatments of severe asthma - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: New, complex, and expensive therapies targeting Interleukin-5 (IL-5) to treat severe eosinophilic asthma are emerging. Objective: To assess efficacy, adverse events, and inter-drug comparison of mepolizumab and reslizumab for treating severe eosinophilic asthma. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials elucidating two critical (exacerbation rate and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use) and six important clinical outcomes on the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab and reslizumab. Results: Five studies (N = 2197) contributed with data for exacerbation rate, showing a reduction of 53% (95% CI 46; 59) in favour of anti-IL-5, corresponding to -0.94 annual exacerbations (95% CI -1.08;-0.82), thus exceeding the predefined minimal clinical important difference (MCID) of 25% reduction of the estimated ≥2 annual exacerbations. Quality of evidence was considered moderate, with low heterogeneity in study findings (I2 = 0%). One study (N = 135) contributed with data on percentage of patients experiencing ≥50% reduction inoral corticosteroid treatment, showing an effect of 20% (95% CI 2.3;47) in favour of anti-IL-5 treatment (mepolizumab), thus exceeding the predefined MCID of 10%. Quality of evidence was considered low. Compared to placebo, anti-IL-5 showed significant improvements in lung function, asthma control, and asthma-related quality of life, but below the MCIDs. No differences were observed for serious adverse events and number of patients, who dropped out. No studies evaluating sickleave or head-to-head comparisons were identified. By indirect comparison, we found no significant difference between mepolizumab and reslizumab in any ofthe predefined clinical outcomes. OCS treatment reduction could not be compared due to lack of reslizumab studies investigating this outcome. Conclusions: Mepolizumab and reslizumab provide significant and clinically relevant improvements in exacerbation rate and OCS reduction. Indirect, inter-study comparisons revealed no differences between the anti-IL-5 drugs in efficacy or safety measures.

Differentiation of adult severe asthma from difficult-to-treat asthma - Outcomes of a systematic assessment protocol

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend a differentiation of difficult-to-treat asthma from severe asthma. However, this might be complex and to which extent this distinction is achievable in clinical practice remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate to which degree a systematic evaluation protocol enables a differentiation between severe versus difficult-to-treat asthma in patients in specialist care on high intensity asthma treatment, i.e. potentially severe asthma.

METHODS

All adult asthma patients seen in four respiratory clinics over one year were screened prospectively for asthma severity. Patients with difficult-to-control asthma according to ERS/ATS criteria (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids/oral corticosteroids) underwent systematic assessment to differentiate severe asthma patients from those with other causes of poor asthma control: objective confirmation of the asthma diagnosis as well as assessment of treatment barriers and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Overall, 1034 asthma patients were screened, of whom 175 (16.9%) had difficult-to-control asthma. 117 of these accepted inclusion, and completed systematic assessment. Asthma diagnosis was objectively confirmed in 88%. Sub-optimal adherence (42.5%), inhaler errors (31.5%) and unmanaged comorbidities (66.7%) were common. After primary assessment, 12% (14/117) fulfilled strict criteria for severe asthma. Moreover, 56% (66/117) were instantly classified as difficult-to-treat asthma due to poor adherence/inhaler technique. Finally, an ´overlap' group of 32% (37/117) were identified with patients being adherent and displaying correct inhaler technique, but had unmanaged comorbidities -potentially fitting into both the difficult-to-treat and severe group.

CONCLUSION

Only a minority of patients with difficult-to-control asthma were found to have severe asthma after primary systematic assessment. Nevertheless, strict categorisation of severe vs. difficult-to-treat asthma seems to pose a challenge.

Nordic consensus statement on the systematic assessment and management of possible severe asthma in adults

Although a minority of asthma patients suffer from severe asthma, they represent a major clinical challenge in terms of poor symptom control despite high-dose treatment, risk of exacerbations, and side effects. Novel biological treatments may benefit patients with severe asthma, but are expensive, and are only effective in appropriately targeted patients. In some patients, symptoms are driven by other factors than asthma, and all patients with suspected severe asthma ('difficult asthma') should undergo systematic assessment, in order to differentiate between true severe asthma, and 'difficult-to-treat' patients, in whom poor control is related to factors such as poor adherence or co-morbidities. The Nordic Consensus Statement on severe asthma was developed by the Nordic Severe Asthma Network, consisting of members from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Estonia, including representatives from the respective national respiratory scientific societies with the aim to provide an overview and recommendations regarding the diagnosis, systematic assessment and management of severe asthma. Furthermore, the Consensus Statement proposes recommendations for the organization of severe asthma management in primary, secondary, and tertiary care.