Asthma patients' and physicians' perspectives on the burden and management of asthma

Asthma control in the United States: Relationships between short-acting β2-agonist and systemic corticosteroid use

BACKGROUND

Asthma control assessment is based on impairment (current symptoms) and risk (exacerbation history).

OBJECTIVE

To understand the extent of uncontrolled asthma, we assessed relationships between prescription fills for systemic corticosteroids (SCS) and short-acting β2-agonists (SABA) as risk and impairment markers, respectively.

METHODS

Annual SCS and SABA fills among US patients with asthma were evaluated by a retrospective analysis of the IQVIA Longitudinal Access and Adjudication Data. Patients' disease severity was assigned based on the Global Initiative for Asthma step-therapy level. Exacerbations were evaluated by SCS fills within 12 months of a first asthma prescription fill. Uncontrolled asthma was defined as 2 or more SCS and/or 3 or more SABA fills annually. Individual patient relationships between SCS and SABA fills were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 4,506,527 patients were included; 15.1% had 2 or more SCS fills, 29.1% had 3 or more SABA fills, and 37.4% fulfilled either or both criteria. If only SCS use was assessed, 21.4% of cases that were treated as mild to moderate and 27.6% that were treated as severe asthma would have been misclassified as controlled. If only SABA use was evaluated, 7.8% of cases treated as mild to moderate and 11.2% treated as severe asthma would have been misclassified. Overall, 80.9% of uncontrolled asthma occurred in patients treated for mild to moderate disease. Among patients with 2 or more SCS fills, the mean SABA fills were 2.9; the correlation between SCS and SABA fills per patient was significant but weak (r = 0.18; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

High symptom burden and SCS exposures are not limited to severe asthma but are also characteristic of patients treated for mild to moderate disease. Both impairment and risk assessments are required to understand the full extent of uncontrolled asthma across disease severities.

APPaRENT 3: Asthma Patients' and Physicians' Perspectives on the Burden and Management of Asthma in Seven Countries

INTRODUCTION

Asthma management is strongly dependent on physician and patient beliefs and perceptions about the disease and its long-term treatment. The APPaRENT 3 study was conducted to explore factors influencing treatment choice and to understand patients' and physicians' attitudes and perspectives on the use of controller inhalers in regular versus flexible dosing for asthma management.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey of patients with asthma and treating physicians was conducted in seven countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam (patient survey only), Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Assessment was carried out through an online/face-to-face questionnaire, where patients' viewpoints were focused on their attitudes and beliefs about asthma and treatment adherence, whereas physicians' viewpoints were gathered on their attitudes and beliefs about asthma management, knowledge of and adherence to asthma treatment guidelines, and asthma treatment regimens.

RESULTS

Overall, 1400 patients (mean age, 34 years) and 599 physicians (mean age, 43 years) were included in the survey. Physicians similarly prioritised symptom control (39%) and exacerbation reduction (40%) in moderate asthma, whereas patients prioritised symptom control (41%) over exacerbation reduction (22%). Although both groups (physicians, 86%; patients, 84%) perceived asthma as well-controlled, poor management was evident based on Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores (mean, 15.7; standard deviation, 4.14; 82% had an ACT score < 20) and high symptom burden (39% reported nighttime awakenings or early mornings ≥ 2 nights/week). Most patients (76%) with moderate asthma were prescribed regular dosing, with the most common treatment being inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) with as-needed inhaled short-acting β2-agonist (SABA; 20%). Among patients on maintenance and reliever therapy, 93% of patients received a separate inhaled reliever.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high symptom burden, patients overestimated their level of asthma control. Physicians prioritised controlling symptoms and reducing exacerbations as treatment goals for moderate asthma, often prescribing regular dosing with ICS/LABA with as-needed inhaled SABA.

Asthma patients' and physicians' perspectives on the burden and management of asthma: Post-hoc analysis of APPaRENT 1 and 2 to assess predictors of treatment adherence

INTRODUCTION

Patient adherence to maintenance medication is critical for improving clinical outcomes in asthma and is a recommended guiding factor for treatment strategy. Previously, the APPaRENT studies assessed patient and physician perspectives on asthma care; here, a post-hoc analysis aimed to identify patient factors associated with good adherence and treatment prescription patterns.

METHODS

APPaRENT 1 and 2 were cross-sectional online surveys of 2866 adults with asthma and 1883 physicians across Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Mexico, and the Philippines in 2020-2021. Combined data assessed adherence to maintenance medication, treatment goals, use of asthma action plans, and physician treatment patterns and preferences. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between patient characteristics and both treatment prescription (by physicians) and patient treatment adherence.

RESULTS

Patient and physician assessments of treatment goals and adherence differed, as did reporting of short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions alongside maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Older age and greater patient-reported severity and reliever use were associated with better adherence. Patient-reported prescription of SABA with MART was associated with household smoking, severe or poorly controlled asthma, and living in China or the Philippines.

CONCLUSIONS

Results revealed an important disconnect between patient and physician treatment goals and treatment adherence, suggesting that strategies for improving patient adherence to maintenance medication are needed, focusing on younger patients with milder disease. High reliever use despite good adherence may indicate poor disease control. Personalised care considering patient characteristics alongside physician training in motivational communication and shared decision-making could improve patient management and outcomes.

A survey of severe asthma in Canada: results from the CASCADE practice reflective program

BACKGROUND

Since the last guidance was published by the Canadian Thoracic Society, there have been several advances in the clinical management of severe asthma. To gain a better understanding of the current standards of care and treatment patterns of patients, the CASCADE practice reflective program was established to conduct a real-world analysis of severe asthma management among specialists in Canada with a goal of identifying areas of opportunity to enhance patient management and outcomes.

METHODS

The CASCADE program was a two-part practice reflective and assessment program delivered through an on-line portal for selected specialists (Respirologists and Allergists) in Canada. The program consisted of a one-time overview survey of physician practice to establish overall practice parameters, followed by a review of at least 5 severe asthma patients to establish the current landscape of severe asthma management.

RESULTS

The program collected practice overview surveys from 78 specialists (52 Respirologists, 24 Allergists, and 2 General practice physicians with an interest in respiratory disease) in 8 provinces. Practices included a variety of types in both large metropolitan centres and smaller regional settings. There were 503 patients reviewed and included in the program. Most (65%) patients were currently using a biologic treatment, 30% were biologic naive, and 5% had used a biologic treatment in the past. Most patients (53%) were reported to have mixed allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes, despite a perception that allergic, eosinophilic and mixed phenotypes were evenly balanced in the physician practice. Overall, patients currently treated with biologic agents had parameters suggesting higher control and were more satisfied with treatment. However, there was less than optimal treatment satisfaction for more than half of all patients, particularly for those patients not treated with a biologic agent.

CONCLUSIONS

Phenotyping is hampered by poor availability for several assessments, and the full range of treatments are not currently fully utilized, partly due to physician familiarity with the agents and partly due to prescribing restrictions. Even when treated with biologic agents, patient satisfaction can still be improved.

The Role of ICS-Containing Rescue Therapy Versus SABA Alone in Asthma Management Today

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends that short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) monotherapy should no longer be prescribed, and that as-needed combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol is the preferred reliever therapy in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. These recommendations are based on the risks of SABA monotherapy, the evidence that ICS-formoterol reliever therapy markedly decreases the occurrence of severe asthma exacerbations compared with SABA reliever therapy alone, and because ICS-formoterol reliever therapy has a favorable risk/benefit profile compared with maintenance ICS plus SABA reliever therapy. Data supporting the use of combination ICS-albuterol reliever therapy in mild asthma are more limited, but there are studies that inform its use in this population. In this review, we compare, using a pros and cons format, the (1) long-term safety and efficacy of ICS-formoterol reliever therapy versus SABA reliever therapy alone, (2) long-term safety and efficacy of ICS-albuterol reliever therapy versus SABA reliever therapy alone, (3) immediate bronchodilator effects of ICS-formoterol versus SABA alone, and (4) clinical and regulatory factors that may inform reliever therapy prescription decisions. By presenting the evidence of these reliever inhaler options, we hope to inform the reader while also calling for necessary future effectiveness and implementation research.

Targeting Asthma Remission as the Next Therapeutic Step Toward Improving Disease Control

The long-term goal of asthma management is to achieve disease control, comprising the assessment of 2 main domains: (1) symptom control and (2) future risk of adverse outcomes. Decades of progress in asthma management have correlated with increasingly ambitious disease control targets. Moreover, the introduction of precision medicines, such as biologics, has further expanded the limits of what can be achieved in terms of disease control. It is now believed that clinical remission, a term rarely associated with asthma, may be an achievable treatment goal. An expert framework published in 2020 took the first step toward developing a commonly accepted definition of clinical remission in asthma. However, there remains a widespread discussion about the clinical parameters and thresholds that should be included in a standardized definition of clinical remission. This review aims to discuss on-treatment clinical remission as an aspirational outcome in asthma management, drawing on experiences from other chronic diseases where remission has long been a goal. We also highlight the integral role of shared decision-making between patients and health care professionals and the need for a common understanding of the individual patient journey to remission as foundational elements in reducing disease burden and improving outcomes for patients with asthma.

Knowledge and Practice of Healthcare Professionals in the Medical Care of Asthma Adult Patients in Jordan with a Particular Reference to Adherence to GINA Recommendations

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate Jordanian healthcare professionals' knowledge, skills, and experience in dealing with and treating adult asthmatic patients and assess healthcare professionals' compliance with the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline recommendations for asthma treatment and management in Jordan.

Patients and Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Jordan between May and June 2023. This study included physicians, pharmacists, and nurses working in clinical settings and directly interacting with asthma patients in Jordan's private and governmental healthcare facilities who were eligible to participate in this research. Three primary sections of an online survey were constructed using Google Forms and included demographic data, a diagnosis and management of the illness, and a list of worldwide medical references for asthma.

Results

A total of 300 healthcare professionals, including pharmacists (103), nurses (87), Doctor of Pharmacy (28), and physicians (82), took part in this research. The survey respondents' general knowledge of the nature and symptoms of asthma is quite high, exceeding 84% and 86%, respectively. The survey also showed a high degree of awareness of asthma diagnosis. It was also revealed that around one-quarter of participants consistently reported the severity of asthma. The most frequent factor influencing the decision to take controller or maintenance medicines is symptom severity (reported from 86% of participants). The GINA guidelines were selected as the asthma information source by almost half of the participants. Finally, 47% of participants were aware of the GINA's 2019 adjustments of the recommendations.

Conclusion

This study showed that Jordanian healthcare professionals understand the nature, symptoms, and diagnoses of asthma disease. However, many of the survey participants lack adherence, awareness, and understanding of the GINA recommendations about asthma management. More research is required to assess the adherence to the evidence-based recommendations and evaluate the impact of training courses.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol SMART therapy versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed SABA among patients ≥12 years with moderate asthma from the Chinese societal perspective

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol as reliever therapy for asthma patients ≥12 years from the societal perspective in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with three health states (non-exacerbation, exacerbation, and death) with a lifetime horizon. The exacerbation rates were obtained from a prospective cohort study conducted in Chinese asthma patients. Healthcare resources utilization data were estimated based on current clinical asthma management guidelines. Asthma-related mortality, cost input and utility values were derived from public database and literature. Model robustness was assessed with one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol, budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy led to fewer exacerbation events (13.6 vs. 15.9) and 0.0077 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain at an additional cost of ¥196.38 over lifetime. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was ¥25,409.98 per QALY gained. The variables that had most impact on the model output included drug costs and medication adherence. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥257,094/QALY (3 times of gross domestic product per capita in China in 2022), the probability of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy being cost-effective versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed salbutamol was 83.00%.

CONCLUSION

From the societal perspective, budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed salbutamol for Chinese asthma patients ≥12 years.

Expert Consensus on SABA Use for Asthma Clinical Decision-Making: A Delphi Approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A modified Delphi process was undertaken to provide a US expert-led consensus to guide clinical action on short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) use. This comprised an online survey (Phase 1), forum discussion and statement development (Phase 2), and statement adjudication (Phase 3).

RECENT FINDINGS

In Phase 1 (n = 100 clinicians), 12% routinely provided patients with ≥4 SABA prescriptions/year, 73% solicited SABA use frequency at every patient visit, and 21% did not consult asthma guidelines/expert reports. Phase 3 experts (n = 8) reached consensus (median Likert score, interquartile range) that use of ≥3 SABA canisters/year is associated with increased risk of exacerbation and asthma-related death (5, 4.75-5); SABA use history should be solicited at every patient visit (5, 4.75-5); usage patterns over time, not absolute thresholds, should guide response to SABA overuse (5, 4.5-5). Future asthma guidelines should include clear recommendations regarding SABA usage, using expert-led thresholds for action.

A network meta-analysis of the association between patient traits and response to regular dosing with ICS/long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2 agonist reliever or maintenance and reliever therapy for asthma

INTRODUCTION

Current treatment for moderate-severe asthma with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based therapy can follow two strategies: a single inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) regimen, or regular dosing with ICS/long-acting β2-agonist used as maintenance therapy plus a separate short acting β2-agonist reliever inhaler. It would be clinically useful to understand the potential of patient traits to influence regular dosing or MART treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis was conducted to identify specific patient traits that may predict improved clinical outcomes with regular dosing or MART.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 28 studies in patients with moderate-severe asthma assessing regular dosing or MART treatments and reporting the traits and outcomes of interest. Network meta-regressions found no significant difference in the relative efficacy of regular dosing as compared with MART on any of the clinical outcomes (exacerbation rate, time to first exacerbation, FEV1, reliever use and adherence) for any of the patient traits (baseline lung function, baseline ACQ, age, BMI, and smoking history) evaluated. However, some trends towards traits influencing treatment efficacy were identified. Inconsistent reporting of traits and outcomes was observed between trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysed patient traits evaluated in this study were associated with similar efficacy for the analysed outcomes to either regular dosing or MART; however, trends from the data observed encourage future analyses for possible identification of additional traits, or a combination of traits, that may be of interest. More comparable reporting of clinically important traits and outcomes would improve future analyses.

Clinical inertia in asthma

Despite advances in pharmaceutical treatment in recent years, a relatively high proportion of patients with asthma do not have adequate asthma control, causing chronic disability, poor quality of life, and multiple emergency department visits and hospitalizations. A multifaceted approach is needed to overcome the problems with managing asthma, and clinical inertia (CI) is a crucial concept to assist with this approach. It divides clinical inertia into three main categories, which include healthcare provider-related, patient-related, and healthcare system-related CI. The strategies to overcome these CI are complex, and the M-GAP approach, which combines a multidisciplinary approach, dissemination of guidelines, utilization of applications, and development and promotion of low-cost prescriptions, will help clinicians.

Beginning to Address an Implementation Gap in Asthma: Clinicians' Views of Prescribing Reliever Budesonide-Formoterol Inhalers and SMART in the United States

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Asthma and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recently made paradigm-shifting recommendations regarding inhaler management in asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma now recommends that combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol inhalers replace short-acting β-agonists as the preferred reliever therapy at all steps of asthma management. Although the most recent guidelines of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program did not review reliever ICS-formoterol usage in mild asthma, they similarly recommended single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) at steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. Despite these recommendations, many clinicians-particularly in the United States-are not prescribing new inhaler paradigms. Clinician-level reasons for this implementation gap remain largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To gain an in-depth understanding of the facilitators and barriers to prescribing reliever ICS-formoterol inhalers and SMART in the United States.

METHODS

Community and academic primary care providers, pulmonologists, and allergists who reported regularly caring for adults with asthma were interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, qualitatively coded, and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were continued until theme saturation.

RESULTS

Among 20 interviewed clinicians, only 6 clinicians described regularly prescribing ICS-formoterol inhalers as a reliever inhaler (either alone or within SMART). Significant barriers to new inhaler approaches included concerns surrounding a lack of Food and Drug Administration labeling for ICS-formoterol as a reliever therapy, a lack of awareness regarding a patient's formulary-preferred ICS-long-acting β-agonist choices, the high cost of combination inhalers, and time constraints. Facilitators to using new inhaler approaches included clinicians' beliefs that the latest inhaler recommendations are simpler and more congruent with real-world patients' behavior, and that a potential change in management strategy would offer a valuable opportunity for shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Although new guidelines exist in asthma, many clinicians described significant barriers to using them including medicolegal issues, pharmaceutical formulary confusion, and high drug costs. Nonetheless, most clinicians believed that the latest inhaler approaches would be more intuitive for their patients and would offer an opportunity for patient-centered collaboration and care. Stakeholders may find these results useful in future attempts to increase the real-world adoption of recent asthma recommendations.

Assessing the Effects of Changing Patterns of Inhaled Corticosteroid Dosing and Adherence with Fluticasone Furoate and Budesonide on Asthma Management

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacological asthma management focuses on the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies, which reduce airway inflammation and provide bronchoprotection, improving symptom control and reducing exacerbation risk. ICS underuse due to poor adherence is common, leading to poor clinical outcomes including increased risk of mortality. This article reviews efficacy versus systemic activity profiles for various adherence patterns and dosing regimens of fluticasone furoate (FF)-containing and budesonide (BUD)-containing asthma therapies in clinical trials and real-world studies.

METHODS

We performed a structured literature review (1 January 2000-3 March 2022) and mathematical modelling analysis of FF-containing and BUD-containing regular daily dosing in patients with mild-to-severe asthma, as-needed BUD/formoterol (FOR) in mild asthma, and BUD/FOR maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) dosing in moderate-to-severe asthma, to assess efficacy (bronchoprotection) and systemic activity (cortisol suppression) profiles of dosing patterns of ICS use in multiple adherence scenarios.

RESULTS

A total of 22 manuscripts were included in full-text review and 18 in the model simulations. Focusing on FF-containing or BUD-containing treatments at comparable adherence rates, regular daily FF or FF/vilanterol (VI) dosing provided more prolonged bronchoprotection and fewer systemic effects than daily BUD, daily BUD/FOR, or BUD/FOR MART dosing, especially in low adherence scenarios. In model simulations and the real-world setting, FF/VI generally provided longer bronchoprotection, lower systemic activity, and greater clinical benefits over BUD/FOR as well as consistently higher adherence.

CONCLUSION

In this literature review and modelling analysis, FF/VI was found to show clinical advantages on asthma control over BUD/FOR. These findings have implications for helping clinicians select the most suitable inhaled therapy for their patients with asthma.

Severe asthma patients' and physicians' perspectives of disease burden: do they match?

A novel open-ended survey revealed contrasting viewpoints and priorities between patients with severe asthma and clinicians. These divergences must be considered when treating individual patients in multidisciplinary treatment teams. https://bit.ly/40Fsr9o.

The Changing Asthma Management Landscape and Need for Appropriate SABA Prescription

Short-acting β2 agonists (SABAs) have been a mainstay of asthma treatment since the 1950s, and have been mainly recommended as-needed for symptom relief alongside daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based maintenance treatment for the past 30 years. However, patient adherence to regular ICS-based anti-inflammatory maintenance therapy is frequently poor, leading to SABA overuse for symptom relief and associated poor outcomes. At present, there is a lack of consensus between treatment guidelines on how SABA should be used, and as-needed ICS-formoterol is suggested by some as an alternative reliever therapy. Here, we examine the pharmacology and current use of inhaled SABAs, identify that regular dosing of ICS can encourage appropriate SABA use, and appraise the evidence used to support the changing reliever treatment recommendations. We conclude that SABA continues to play an important role in the asthma management landscape, and give our views on how it should be used in patients with mild-moderate asthma, to complement regular ICS-based maintenance treatment.

Delivery technology of inhaled therapy for asthma and COPD

Inhaled therapy is the cornerstone of the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Drugs such as bronchodilators and corticosteroids are administered directly to the airways for local effect and rapid onset of action while systemic exposure and side effects are minimized. There are four major types of inhaler devices used clinically to generate aerosols for inhalation, namely, pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), nebulizers, Soft Mist™ inhalers (SMIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Each of them has its own unique characteristics that can target different patient groups. For instance, patients' inhaler technique is critical for pMDIs and SMIs to achieve proper drug deposition in the lung, which could be challenging for some patients. Nebulizers are designed to deliver aerosols to patients during tidal breathing, but they require electricity to operate and are less portable than other devices. DPIs are the only device that delivers aerosols in dry powder form with better stability, but they rely on patients' inspiration effort for powder dispersion, rendering them unsuitable for patients with compromised lung function. Choosing a device that can cater for the need of individual patient is paramount for effective inhaled therapy. This chapter provides an overview of inhaled therapy for the management of asthma and COPD. The operation principles, merits and limitations of different delivery technologies are examined. Looking ahead, the challenges of delivering novel therapeutics such as biologics through the pulmonary route are also discussed.

ICS/Ultra LABA in the Treatment of Obstructive Airway Diseases: A Consensus of Indian Experts

Inhaled corticosteroid and ultra-long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/uLABA) combination is a recent advancement in the armamentarium against obstructive airways diseases (OADs). The combination of ICS/uLABA has several advantages, creating a favorable landscape for its utilization. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate (FF/Vi) is one such example of an ICS/uLABA. It offers several benefits from both drugs, such as a convenient once daily dosing schedule; high lipophilicity; high receptor affinity of fluticasone furoate along with high functional selectivity and a quick onset of action of vilanterol. However, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) as well as the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines do not clearly define the positioning of ICS/uLABA compared to conventional ICS/LABAs. There are a few areas of uncertainty especially around the appropriate reliever strategy with ICS/uLABA in Asthma. The current consensus was planned with a group of Indian pulmonology experts to provide more clarity on the potential use of FF/Vi in Asthma and COPD. The clinical statements highlighted in this consensus manuscript address crucial clinical questions revolving around the efficacy and safety of FF/Vi as compared to conventional ICS/LABAs and identify the ideal patient profile for its use. This consensus paper also sheds light upon the appropriate reliever to be used along with FF/Vi in Asthma and the utilization of FF/Vi-based triple therapy in OADs. Expert recommendations mentioned in this paper will serve as guidance to pulmonologists as well as consultant physicians who are involved in providing care to OAD patients and will help them weigh the various factors that need to be taken into account while prescribing ICS/uLABA combination.

Keeping Pace with Adolescent Asthma: A Practical Approach to Optimizing Care

Known for their pre-occupation with body image, self-identity creation, peer acceptance, and risk-taking behaviors, adolescents with asthma face unique challenges. Asthma is a heterogeneous disease and accurate diagnosis requires assessment through detailed clinical history, examination, and objective tests. Diagnostic challenges exist as many adolescents can present with asthma-like symptoms but do not respond to asthma treatment and risk being mis-diagnosed. Under-recognition of asthma symptoms and denial of disease severity must also be addressed. The over-reliance on short-acting beta-agonists in the absence of anti-inflammatory therapy for asthma is now deemed unsafe. Adolescents with mild asthma benefit from symptom-driven treatment with combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) on an as-required basis. For those with moderate-to-persistent asthma requiring daily controller therapy, maintenance and reliever therapy using the same ICS-LABA controller simplifies treatment regimes, while serving to reduce exacerbation risk. A developmentally staged approach based on factors affecting asthma control in early, middle, and late adolescence enables better understanding of the individual's therapeutic needs. Biological, psychological, and social factors help formulate a risk assessment profile in adolescents with difficult-to-treat and severe asthma. Smoking increases risks of developing asthma symptoms, lung function deterioration, and asthma exacerbations. Morbidity associated with e-cigarettes or vaping calls for robust efforts towards smoking and vaping cessation and abstinence. As adolescents progress from child-centered to adult-oriented care, coordination and planning are required to improve their self-efficacy to ready them for transition. Frequent flare-ups of asthma can delay academic attainment and adversely affect social and physical development. In tandem with healthcare providers, community and schools can link up to help shoulder this burden, optimizing care for adolescents with asthma.