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

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.

Effect of Individual Patient Characteristics and Treatment Choices on Reliever Medication Use in Moderate-Severe Asthma: A Poisson Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Even though increased use of reliever medication, including short-acting beta agonists (SABA), provides an indirect measure of symptom worsening, there have been limited efforts to assess how different patterns of reliever use correlate with symptom control and future risk of exacerbations. Here, we evaluate the effect of individual baseline characteristics on reliever use in patients with moderate-severe asthma on regular maintenance therapy with fluticasone propionate (FP) or combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) or budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).

METHODS

A drug-disease model describing the number of 24-h puffs and overnight occasions was developed with data from five clinical studies (N = 6212). The model was implemented using a nonlinear mixed effects approach and a Poisson function, considering clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Goodness of fit and model predictive performance were assessed. Heatmaps were created to summarise the effect of concurrent baseline factors on reliever utilisation.

RESULTS

The final model accurately described individual patterns of reliever use, which is significantly increased with time since diagnosis, smoking, higher Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) score and higher body mass index (BMI) at baseline. Whilst the number of puffs decreases slowly after an initial drop relative to the start of treatment, exacerbating patients utilise significantly more reliever than those who do not exacerbate. The mean effect of FP/SAL (median dose: 250/50 μg BID) on reliever use was slightly higher than that of BUD/FOR (median dose: 160/4.5 μg BID), i.e. a 75.3% vs 69.3% reduction in reliever use, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of individual-level patient data in conjunction with a parametric approach enabled the characterisation of interindividual differences in the patterns of reliever use in patients with moderate-severe asthma. Taken together, individual demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as exacerbation history, can be considered an indicator of the degree of asthma control. High SABA reliever use suggests suboptimal clinical management of patients on maintenance therapy.

Over-the-counter use of short-acting beta-2 agonists: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The widespread use of short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABA) as an as-needed treatment for asthma is well-established. However, excessive use of SABA has been linked to undesirable outcomes such as increased risk of asthma attacks, exacerbations, and even death. The availability of SABA as an over-the-counter (OTC) medication has contributed to their overuse, leading to undertreated asthma and reduced access to asthma education.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to summarize the prevalence, characteristic features of, and factors contributing to over-the-counter SABA purchase or overuse.

METHODS

The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Springer Link, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and APA PsycArticles. Original research articles reporting the prevalence, characteristics features, and factors regarding over-the-counter SABA use, available as full text, published in English language between the year 2000 and April 2023 were included in this review. Commentaries, letters to editor, review articles, qualitative studies, clinical trials, and conference proceedings were excluded. Data extraction was followed by a review of the quality of studies included and data were then synthesized for meaningful findings. This systematic review had been registered in the PROSPERO with registration number CRD42023421007.

RESULTS

A total of 18 articles were included. The prevalence range of OTC SABA users in populations were 1.4% to 39.6% and SABA over-users among OTC users were 14% to 66.4%. Factors mostly associated with this behavior were moderate-severe asthma, and less use of preventers. On top of that, not understanding the risk of SABA overuse was clear in many studies that explored this factor.

CONCLUSION

Over-the-counter purchase and overuse of SABA medication is a common problem, leading to adverse consequences such as uncontrolled asthma and increased healthcare utilization. Addressing these issues requires improved patient education about their conditions and adequate information regarding the potential long-term effects of SABA use by the healthcare providers. Management and education of asthma patients, including regular monitoring and follow-up, can help reduce overuse of SABA medication and prevent negative consequences.

SABAs as Reliever Medications in Asthma Management: Evidence-Based Science

The role of as-needed inhaled short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) in the management of asthma has become a subject of debate due to differing opinions in the professional community relating to the use of SABAs. In this article, we summarize the current position of SABAs when used as reliever medications and examine the challenges to appropriate use including a critique of the data that have led to the condemnation of SABA used as a reliever. We consider the evidence for the appropriate use of SABA as a reliever together with practical solutions to ensure such use, including identifying patients at risk of misusing their SABA relievers and managing issues of inhaler technique and treatment adherence. We conclude that inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based maintenance treatment with SABA used as-needed as a reliever is an effective and safe treatment for patients with asthma, with no scientific evidence of a causal link between SABA use as a reliever and mortality or serious adverse events (including exacerbations). Increased SABA use warns of a deterioration in asthma control, and patients at risk of misusing their ICS and SABA medication should be rapidly identified to ensure they are receiving adequate ICS-based controller therapy. Appropriate use of ICS-based controller therapy and as-needed SABA should be encouraged and promoted with educational activities.

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.

The role of modeling studies in asthma management and clinical decision-making: a Delphi survey of physician knowledge and perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the knowledge and perceptions of physicians on the role of modeling studies in asthma, using a modified Delphi procedure.

METHODS

Group opinions among a panel of respiratory experts were obtained using two online questionnaires and a virtual scientific workshop. A consensus was pre-defined as agreement by >75% of participants.

RESULTS

From 26 experts who agreed to participate, 22 completed both surveys. At the end of the process, the panel rated their own understanding of modeling as good (77%) but that among physicians in general as poor (77%). Participants agreed that data from modeling studies should be used, at least sometimes, to inform treatment guidelines (91%) and could be useful for guiding clinical decisions (100%). Perceived barriers to using modeling studies were 'A lack of understanding' (81%) and 'A lack of standardized methodology' (82%). Based on data from two modeling studies, no consensus was reached on physicians recommending regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus as-needed therapy for patients with mild asthma, whereas 77% agreed that they would recommend regular ICS over maintenance and reliever therapy for ≥80% of their patients with moderate asthma. No consensus was reached on the value of modeling data in relation to empirical data.

CONCLUSION

There is overall support among respiratory experts for the usefulness of modeling data to guide asthma treatment guidelines and clinical decision making. More publications on modeling data using robust models and accessible terminology will aid the understanding of physicians in general and help clarify the evidence-based value of modeling studies.

Safety of SABA Monotherapy in Asthma Management: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) reliever overuse is common in asthma, despite availability of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based maintenance therapies, and may be associated with increased risk of adverse events (AEs). This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability of SABA reliever monotherapy for adults and adolescents with asthma, through analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence.

METHODS

An SLR of English-language publications between January 1996 and December 2021 included RCTs and observational studies of patients aged ≥ 12 years treated with inhaled SABA reliever monotherapy (fixed dose or as needed) for ≥ 4 weeks. Studies of terbutaline and fenoterol were excluded. Meta-analysis feasibility was dependent on cross-trial data comparability. A random-effects model estimated rates of mortality, serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuation due to AEs (DAEs) for as-needed and fixed-dose SABA treatment groups. ICS monotherapy and SABA therapy were compared using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies were identified by the SLR for assessment of feasibility. Final meta-analysis included 24 RCTs. Too few observational studies (n = 2) were available for inclusion in the meta-analysis. One death unrelated to treatment was reported in each of the ICS, ICS + LABA, and fixed-dose SABA groups. No other treatment-related deaths were reported. SAE and DAE rates were < 4%. DAEs were reported more frequently in the SABA treatment groups than with ICS, potentially owing to worsening asthma symptoms being classified as an AE. SAE risk was comparable between SABA and ICS treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of data from RCTs showed that deaths were rare with SABA reliever monotherapy, and rates of SAEs and DAEs were comparable between SABA reliever and ICS treatment groups. When used appropriately within prescribed limits as reliever therapy, SABA does not contribute to excess rates of mortality, SAEs, or DAEs.

Consensus on mild asthma management: results of a modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

In order to understand the role of regular controller inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus as-needed ICS-formoterol in managing mild asthma, we performed a modified Delphi procedure.

METHODS

Opinions from 16 respiratory experts to three surveys and during a virtual scientific workshop helped to develop final consensus statements (pre-defined as 70% agreement).

RESULTS

Thirteen participants completed all rounds (response rate 81%). At the end of the procedure, there was final consensus on: regular daily ICS being the recommended treatment approach in mild persistent asthma, with better symptom control and robust long-term clinical data compared with as-needed ICS-formoterol (85%); to avoid noncompliance, frequently seen in mild asthma patients, regular ICS dosing should be accompanied by ongoing education on treatment adherence (100%); treatment aims should be targeting asthma control (92%) and reduction of exacerbation risk (85%). No consensus was reached on whether GINA or national guidelines most influence prescribing decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to encourage patients to be adherent and to target both asthma control and exacerbation risk reduction. There is robust clinical evidence to support proactive regular dosing with ICS controller therapy plus as-needed short-acting beta-agonists for the management of patients with mild asthma.

ABBREVIATIONS.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2022.2034850 .

Utilization Patterns and Trends in the Use of Medications for Asthma in a Cohort of Colombian Patients

Purpose

Asthma affects approximately 358 million people worldwide. This study aimed to determine the trend for the use of medications intended to treat asthma in a group of patients affiliated with the Colombian health system.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective study on prescription patterns of medications used to treat asthma in patients over 5 years of age between 2017 and 2019. Sociodemographic variables, medications used and combinations, the persistence of use, and prescribing physicians were considered. Data were obtained from a drug-dispensing database from Colombia.

Results

A total of 10,706 people diagnosed with asthma were identified, including predominantly females (56.8%), with a mean age of 32.2 ± 26.1 years. At the beginning of the follow-up, 53.2% of patients aged 5–11 years were receiving monotherapy, with a mean of 1.5 ± 0.6 drugs/patient, especially inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; 55.9%) and short-acting β-agonists (SABAs; 55.6%). Moreover, in patients older than 12 years, 53.5% were treated with monotherapy, with a mean of 1.6 ± 0.7 drugs/patient, 45.9% of whom were on SABAs, while 37.1% were on ICSs. Between 63.0% and 83.6% of patients were treated by a general practitioner. 12.5% of patients (n = 495) received triple therapy (ICS/LABA + LAMA [long-acting antimuscarinic]), particularly fluticasone/salmeterol + tiotropium.

Conclusion

The identification of treatment patterns will allow physicians and decision makers to implement strategies in order to promote adherence to treatment and improve asthma medication use.

Primary Care Management of Asthma Exacerbations or Attacks: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a renewed focus on appropriate management of chronic respiratory conditions with a heightened awareness of respiratory symptoms and the requirement for differential diagnosis between an asthma attack and COVID-19 infection. Despite early concerns in the pandemic, most studies suggest that well-managed asthma is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-related outcomes, and that asthma may even have a protective effect. Advice on the treatment of asthma and asthma attacks has remained unchanged. This article describes some challenges faced in primary care asthma management in adults and in teenagers, particularly their relevance during a pandemic, and provides practical advice on asthma attack recognition, classification, treatment and continuity of care. Acute attacks, characterised by increased symptoms and reduced lung function, are often referred to as exacerbations of asthma by doctors and nurses but are usually described by patients as asthma attacks. They carry a significant and underestimated morbidity and mortality burden. Many patients experiencing an asthma attack are assessed in primary care for treatment and continuing management. This may require remote assessment by telephone and home monitoring devices, where available, during a pandemic. Differentiation between an asthma attack and a COVID-19 infection requires a structured clinical assessment, taking account of previous medical and family history. Early separation into mild, moderate, severe or life-threatening attacks is helpful for continuing good management. Most attacks can be managed in primary care but when severe or unresponsive to initial treatment, the patient should be appropriately managed until transfer to an acute care facility can be arranged. Good quality care is important to prevent further attacks and must include a follow-up appointment in primary care, proactive regular dosing with daily controller therapy and an understanding of a patient's beliefs and perceptions about asthma to maximise future self-management.

Pharmacology Versus Convenience: A Benefit/Risk Analysis of Regular Maintenance Versus Infrequent or As-Needed Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Mild Asthma

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the bronchoprotective and benefit/risk profiles of various inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosing regimens in mild asthma.

METHODS

A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model was developed and validated describing the relationship between ICS dose and time-course for airway bronchoprotection, [provocative concentration of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) causing ≥ 20% decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (AMP PC20)], for fluticasone furoate (FF), fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD). For regular ICS maintenance therapy (100% and 50% adherence) and infrequent or as-needed use (dosing 3-4 times per week), treatment effectiveness was expressed as percent time during 28 days when bronchoprotection exceeded either the threshold for a treatment-related bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 0.25 doubling dose) or the threshold for a clinically significant bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 1.0 doubling dose). This value was divided by the total ICS dose administered expressed in prednisolone equivalents to give a therapeutic index (TI).

RESULTS

The model-predicted time course of ICS-induced bronchoprotection with regular daily maintenance dosing and 100% adherence showed that all ICS at the highest recommended doses for mild asthma exceeded the threshold for clinically significant bronchoprotective effect for all or most of the 28-day dosing period, mean (90% CI); 100% (96.1-100), 99.9% (8.0-100) and 100% (58.2-100) with TI values of 16.9, 6.6 and 5.4 for FF 100 µg OD, FP 200 µg BID and BUD 200 µg BID, respectively. For simulated poor adherence (50%) to regular daily maintenance therapy, corresponding mean (90% CI) values were; 75.7% (39.4-89.1), 52.3% (0.7-69.2) and 51.3% (28.6-58.3) with TI values of 25.7, 6.9 and 5.6. For simulated infrequent/as needed use the corresponding values were; 77.0% (37.6-87.0), 25.5% (0.0-38.0) and 26.2% (14.3-31.5) with TI values of 26.1, 6.7 and 5.7. For all regimen/scenarios, FF had the most sustained efficacy and favourable TI followed by FP and BUD.

CONCLUSIONS

At doses recommended for mild asthma, all ICS regimens provide sustained bronchoprotective efficacy when dosed regularly with high adherence. With poor adherence or use 3-4 times per week (infrequent/as needed), longer-acting ICS molecules will more likely provide sustained protection and a better TI versus shorter duration of action molecules (FF > FP ≥ BUD). These data highlight the benefits of using ICS as regular daily maintenance dosing in mild asthma and the potential risks of under-treatment with ICS (which may occur with ICS/formoterol as-needed approach in mild persistent asthma) associated with reduced levels of bronchoprotection.

Direct healthcare costs associated with management of asthma: comparison of two treatment regimens in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam

OBJECTIVE

Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combinations comprising either regular maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) or ICS-formoterol combinations used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are recommended for moderate asthma. This analysis compares the direct costs of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol MART in three Southeast Asian countries.

METHODS

A literature review identified three randomized trials in patients with asthma (≥ 12 years) comparing regular twice-daily FP/salm with as-needed SABA versus MART in moderate asthma: AHEAD (NCT00242775/17 countries/2309 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0735/16 countries/3335 patients), and COSMOS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0691/16 countries/2143 patients). Economic analyses, conducted from a healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs), applied unit costs from countries where healthcare costs are publicly available: Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Results are expressed in British pound sterling (GBP/patient/year).

RESULTS

Annual exacerbation rates were low and differences between treatment strategies were small (range, FP/salm: 0.31-0.38, MART: 0.24-0.25) although statistically significant in favor of MART. Total average (minimum-maximum) direct costs (in GBP/patient/year) across the three studies were £187 (£137-£284), £158 (£125-£190), and £151 (£141-£164) for those who used FP/salm, and £242 (£217-£267), £284 (£237-£340) and £266 (£224-£315) for MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total direct costs/patient/year with FP/salm were 22.8%, 44.6% and 43.0% lower than with MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the three countries evaluated, total treatment costs with regular twice-daily FP/salm were consistently lower than with budesonide/formoterol MART due to lower direct healthcare costs.