Asthma rescue and allergy medication use among asthmatic children with prior allergy prescriptions who initiated asthma controller therapy

Prescribing patterns of asthma controller therapy for children in UK primary care: a cross-sectional observational study

Background

Asthma management guidelines recommend a stepwise approach to instituting and adjusting anti-inflammatory controller therapy for children with asthma. The objective of this retrospective observational study was to describe prescribing patterns of asthma controller therapies for children in a primary care setting.

Methods

Data from the UK General Practice Research Database were examined for children with recorded asthma or recurrent wheezing who, from September 2006 through February 2007, were ≤ 14 years old at the time of a first asthma controller prescription after ≥ 6 months without a controller prescription. We evaluated demographic characteristics, asthma duration, comorbidities, asthma-related health care resource use, and prescribed daily dose of controller medication. In addition, physicians for 635 randomly selected patients completed a survey retrospectively classifying asthma severity at the prescription date and describing therapy and health care utilization for 6 prior months.

Results

We identified 10,004 children, 5942 (59.4%) of them boys, of mean (SD) age of 8.0 (3.8) years. Asthma controller prescriptions were for inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy for 9059 (90.6%) children; ICS plus long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) for 698 (7.0%); leukotriene antagonist monotherapy for 91 (0.9%); ICS plus leukotriene antagonist for 55 (0.6%); and other therapy for 101 (1.0%), including 45 (0.45%) children who were prescribed LABA as monotherapy. High doses of ICS (> 400 μg) were prescribed for 44/2140 (2.1%) children < 5 years old and for 420/7452 (5.6%) children ≥ 5 years. Physicians reported asthma severity as intermittent for 346/635 (55%) patients and as mild, moderate, and severe persistent for 159 (25%), 71 (11%), and 11 (2%), respectively (severity data missing for 48 [8%]). The baseline characteristics and controller therapy prescriptions of the survey cohort were similar to those of the full cohort.

Conclusions

Physician classifications of asthma severity did not always correspond to guideline recommendations, as leukotriene receptor antagonists were rarely used and high-dose ICS or add-on LABA was prescribed even in intermittent and mild disease. In UK primary care, monotherapy with ICS is the most common controller therapy at all levels of asthma severity.

Quality of care for children hospitalized with asthma

OBJECTIVES

The goals were (1) to identify evidence-based clinical process measures that are appropriate, feasible, and reliable for assessing the quality of inpatient asthma care for children and (2) to evaluate provider compliance with these measures.

METHODS

Key asthma quality measures were identified by using a modified Rand appropriateness method, combining a literature review of asthma care evidence with a consensus panel. The feasibility and reliability of obtaining these measures were determined through manual chart review. Provider compliance with these measures was evaluated through retrospective manual chart review of data for 252 children between 2 and 17 years of age who were admitted to a tertiary care children's hospital in 2005 because of asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Nine appropriate, feasible, reliable, clinical process measures of inpatient asthma care were identified. Provider compliance with these measures was as follows: acute asthma severity assessment at admission, 39%; use of systemic corticosteroid therapy, 98%; use of oral (not intravenous) systemic corticosteroid therapy, 87%; use of ipratropium bromide restricted to <24 hours after admission, 71%; use of albuterol delivered with a metered-dose inhaler (not nebulizer) for children >5 years of age, 20%; documented chronic asthma severity assessment, 22%; parental participation in an asthma education class, 33%; written asthma action plan, 5%; scheduled follow-up appointment with the primary care provider at discharge, 22%.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine appropriate, feasible, reliable, clinical process measures of inpatient asthma care were identified. Provider compliance across these measures was highly variable but generally low. Our study highlights opportunities for improvement in the provision of asthma care for hospitalized children. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings in other inpatient settings.

Update on montelukast and its role in the treatment of asthma, allergic rhinitis and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

Montelukast sodium (Singulair, Merck and Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) is a selective and orally-active leukotriene receptor antagonist with demonstrated effectiveness for treating allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis in adults and children as young as 12 months of age for allergic asthma and 6 months of age for allergic rhinitis. It was recently approved in the US for prevention of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients who are > or = 15 years of age. This paper updates a prior review of the data on the clinical efficacy of montelukast published in this journal.

Montelukast in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: an evidence-based review

Cysteinyl-leukotrienes (CysLTs) are endogenous mediators of inflammation and play an important role in allergic airway disease by stimulating bronchoconstriction, mucus production, mucosal oedema and inflammation, airway infiltration by eosinophils, and dendritic cell maturation that prepares for future allergic response. Montelukast inhibits these actions by blocking type 1 CysLT receptors found on immunocytes, smooth muscle and endothelium in the respiratory mucosa. Initially developed as a treatment for asthma, montelukast has more recently found use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). We conducted a systematic review of studies that have evaluated montelukast in the treatment of seasonal AR (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR), with and without concomitant asthma. Primary consideration was given to large, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials in which AR endpoints were assessed and the use of concurrent treatments for AR was excluded. Eight such studies were found in the literature. The primary endpoint in these was daytime nasal symptom severity represented by a composite score derived from individual self-ratings of nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, nasal pruritus and sneezing. Secondary endpoints have included these individual nasal symptom scores, additional scores for eye, ear and throat symptoms, the impact of rhinitis on quality of sleep, global evaluations of outcome by patients and physicians, and measures of the severity of concomitant asthma. A general outcome was that patients treated with montelukast had significantly greater improvements in their symptoms of SAR and PAR than did patients who were given a placebo. As monotherapy, montelukast exhibited efficacy similar to that of loratadine, but less than that of the intranasally administered corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. The use of montelukast in combination with antihistamines such as loratadine or cetirizine has generally resulted in greater efficacy than when these agents were used alone, and in some studies has produced results comparable with intranasally applied corticosteroids. In patients with AR comorbid with asthma, montelukast treatment has resulted in significant improvements in both, compared with placebo. Montelukast is well tolerated and has a favourable safety profile; adverse events have occurred at similar frequencies in patients taking either montelukast or placebo. Montelukast provides an effective and well tolerated oral treatment for allergic airway inflammation in patients with SAR or PAR without asthma, and in patients in whom AR is comorbid with asthma.

Comparative efficacy and cost of asthma care in children with asthma treated with fluticasone propionate and montelukast

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative efficacy of fluticasone propionate (FP) and montelukast (MON), using administrative claims for pediatric asthma in a clinical setting.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective observational study used the PharMetrics Integrated-Outcomes Database. Children age 4 to 17 years with an ICD-9-CM 493.xx for asthma, therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid in the 12 months before the index medications, and an index claim for FP or MON between January 2001 and December 2003 were studied. FP- and MON-treated children were propensity-matched based on health care utilization. Asthma-related parameters studied included treatment failure, hospitalizations, and total cost of care.

RESULTS

The children treated with MON were more likely to experience treatment failure (odds ratio [OR] = 2.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.19 to 2.96) and to be admitted to the hospital for asthma-related care (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.15 to 3.44) compared with those treated with FP. Furthermore, the children treated with MON incurred significantly higher asthma-related treatment costs compared with those treated with FP (parameter estimate = 0.418; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In children with asthma, treatment with FP is associated with better outcomes and lower cost than treatment with MON.

Asthma and allergy medication use and costs among pediatric primary care patients on asthma controller therapy

As observational studies in children initiating GINA-Step 3 therapies are scarce, we evaluated outcomes and costs in a primary care cohort. Two-yr retrospective cohort study included French children (age: 6-14) continuously followed in BKL-Thalès database who received > or =2 consecutive prescriptions for GINA-Step 3 therapy (=addition of montelukast or other controllers ('other'), such as increasing inhaled-corticosteroid dose (hICS), adding long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or ICS + LABA). After matching on gender and propensity score, medication use [rescue (short-acting beta agonists), acute (antibiotics (AB), oral corticosteroids (OCS)), allergy (antihistamines, nasal steroids) and other respiratory] was estimated via mean number of prescriptions and mean cost (per child/per month), and cost trends. During 12-month follow-up, children adding montelukast (n = 71) vs. 'other' (n = 213) had similar asthma rescue/acute and allergy medication use. Subgroup with asthma and allergic rhinitis (A + AR) adding montelukast used less OCS and AB (p = 0.014). Two-yr cost trends suggest stable asthma/allergy medication use in montelukast group (0.83 euro) compared with increase in 'other' (5.39 euro), which was driven by nasal steroid use [0.32 euro ('other') vs. -0.04 euro (montelukast), p = 0.0013]. In subgroup with A + AR decline in asthma/allergy medication use in montelukast group (-0.47 euro) vs. increase in 'other' (11.05 euro), p = 0.015, was driven by differences in AB and OCS (p = 0.04) and nasal steroid use (p = 0.001). Concomitant asthma/allergy medication use was similar in children adding montelukast or 'other' controllers (hICS, LABA, ICS + LABA), while children with allergic rhinitis on montelukast used less AB. Concomitant medication costs after addition of montelukast remained stable, while 'other' group experienced increase, especially in children with concomitant allergic rhinitis.

Treatment and outcomes in patients with asthma and allergic rhinitis in the United kingdom

BACKGROUND

Since allergic rhinitis in asthma patients is associated with worse asthma control, the treatment of the comorbid condition may improve outcomes.

METHODS

A 1-year retrospective study using the UK Mediplus database (2001-2004) included asthmatic patients aged 15-55 with allergic rhinitis. Patients starting therapy based on the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, defined as an increase in inhaled corticosteroids (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, hdICS), or the addition of montelukast (ICS+MON) or long-acting beta-agonists (ICS+LABA) to ICS, were studied. Univariable and multiple logistic regressions evaluated asthma-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 2,596 asthma and allergic rhinitis patients, 83.2% initiated ICS+LABA, 12.1% hdICS and 4.7% ICS+MON. The mean age was 34 years and 60% were female. ICS+MON patients had more moderate-severe asthma (p = 0.04). Approximately 84% of the ICS+LABA patients experienced an asthma control failure compared to 50% in the other groups (p < 0.0001). The proportions of patients requiring treatment change were 73.8, 22 and 27.3% in the ICS+LABA, hdICS and ICS+MON groups, respectively (p = 0.001). Asthma-related resource use was similar among all groups. The ICS+MON group received fewer mean prescriptions for oral corticosteroids (p = 0.024) than the other groups (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

In asthma and allergic rhinitis, treatment with ICS+MON or hdICS was associated with lower rates of asthma control failure and fewer treatment changes than the ICS+LABA group. MON users also required fewer oral corticosteroids.

The use of rhinitis medications in children receiving initial controller therapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Due to common features of asthma and allergic rhinitis, a single therapeutic approach to treating both of these conditions has been proposed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast the use of rhinitis medications in a group of children initiating various controller therapies for asthma.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study using an integrated managed care database of children aged 4-17 years with an initial medical claim for asthma and an initial pharmacy claim for fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol in a single inhaler (FSC), FP alone, montelukast (MON), or combination FP + MON. Outcomes included the percentage of children initiating controller asthma therapy with prescriptions for non-sedating antihistamine (NSA) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) and the mean number of prescriptions for NSA and INCS.

RESULTS

A total of 5247 children were included. The percentage of children who filled prescriptions for NSA or INCS and the mean number of prescriptions dispensed was similar among children treated with FSC, FP, MON, and FP + MON. There were no significant differences in the relative risk of dispensing either a NSA or INCS across cohorts. Observational studies are limited by their use of administrative data and lack of access to patient records.

CONCLUSIONS

Children started on common asthma controller therapy are frequent users of rhinitis medications. The quantity and frequency of these medications is not different between dispensed asthma regimens.

Effect of montelukast on lung function in asthma patients with allergic rhinitis: analysis from the COMPACT trial

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Outcomes with Montelukast as a Partner Agent to Corticosteroid Therapy (COMPACT) trial demonstrated that montelukast added to budesonide (MNT + BD) was as efficacious as double the dose of budesonide (dBD) in improving morning peak expiratory flow (AM PEF) in adult asthmatics. Recent studies have demonstrated that montelukast is also effective in treating daytime and nighttime allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms in asthmatic patients. This analysis was designed to examine whether asthmatic patients with comorbid AR respond differently than patients without comorbid AR in terms of asthma control (lung function).

METHODS

There were 216 asthmatic patients in the MNT+BD group and 184 patients in the dBD group with AR. Treatment differences in the change from baseline in AM PEF were compared. Least square (LS) mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived from an anova model adjusting for baseline and study site.

RESULTS

There was a 9.2% increase in AM PEF from baseline in the MNT+BD group compared with a 6% increase in the dBD group. The LS mean difference [(MNT+BD)-dBD] was 14.2 l/min (P=0.028). Other secondary endpoints were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

In the subgroup of asthmatic patients with AR, a combined treatment approach that included montelukast and budesonide provided significantly greater efficacy in reducing airflow obstruction compared with doubling the dose of budesonide. These results support recommendations by the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiative that suggest a unified approach aimed at treating the airway inflammation common to both diseases is beneficial for the large proportion of asthmatics who also suffer from AR.