Addressing the impact of ethnicity on asthma care

Design of a community-based, Hybrid Type II effectiveness-implementation asthma intervention study: The Rhode Island Asthma Integrated Response (RI-AIR) program

BACKGROUND

Pediatric asthma is among the most common health conditions and disproportionately impacts Black and Latino children. Gaps in asthma care exist and may contribute to racial and ethnic inequities. The Rhode Island Asthma Integrated Response (RI-AIR) program was developed to address current limitations in care. The aims of the RI-AIR Hybrid Type II effectiveness-implementation trial were to: a) simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of RI-AIR on individual-level and community-level outcomes; b) evaluate implementation strategies used to increase uptake of RI-AIR. In this manuscript, we outline the design and methods used to implement RI-AIR.

METHODS

School-based areas (polygons) with the highest asthma-related urgent healthcare utilization in Greater Providence, R.I., were identified using geospatial mapping. Families with eligible children (2-12 years) living in one of the polygons received evidence-based school- and/or home-based asthma management interventions, based on asthma control level. School-based interventions included child and caregiver education programs and school staff trainings. Home-based interventions included individualized asthma education, home-environmental assessments, and strategies and supplies for trigger remediation. Implementation strategies included engaging school nurse teachers as champions, tailoring interventions to school preferences, and engaging families for input.

RESULTS

A total of 6420 children were screened throughout the study period, 811 were identified as eligible, and 433 children were enrolled between November 2018 and December 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective implementation of pediatric asthma interventions is essential to decrease health inequities and improve asthma management. The RI-AIR study serves as an example of a multi-level intervention to improve outcomes and reduce disparities in pediatric chronic disease.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03583814.

Effects of Tezepelumab on Quality of Life of Patients with Moderate-to-Severe, Uncontrolled Asthma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the effects of tezepelumab on quality of life (QoL) in patients with moderate-to-severe, uncontrolled asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Tezepelumab improves pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and reduces the annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) in patients with moderate-to-severe, uncontrolled asthma. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to September 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing tezepelumab versus placebo in patients aged ≥ 12 years with asthma on medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with ≥ 1 additional controller medication for ≥ 6 months and who had ≥ 1 asthma exacerbation in the 12 months before enrollment. We estimated effects measures with a random-effects model. Of 239 records identified, three studies were included, with a total of 1,484 patients. Tezepelumab significantly decreased biomarkers of T helper 2-driven inflammation, including blood eosinophil count (MD -135.8 [95% CI -164.37, -107.23]) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (MD -9.64 [95% CI -13.75, -5.53]); improved PFTs, including pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (MD 0.18 [95% CI 0.08-0.27]); reduced the AAER (MD 0.47 [95% CI 0.39-0.56]); improved asthma-specific health-related QoL in the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (MD -0.33 [95% CI -0.34, -0.32]), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire for 12 Years and Older (MD 0.34 [95% CI 0.33, -0.35]), Asthma Symptom Diary (MD -0.11 [95% CI -0.18, -0.04]), and European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Levels Questionnaire (SMD 3.29 [95% CI 2.03, 4.55]) scores, although not clinically important; and did not change key safety outcomes, including any adverse event (OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.56-1.09]).

Asthma guidelines: comparison of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Expert Panel Report 4 with Global Initiative for Asthma 2021

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma continues to be a prevalent respiratory disease that affects lives within the United States and worldwide. Clinical asthma guidelines based on scientific evidence on testing and therapeutic interventions are needed to control this disease better. To meet this need, the NAEPP (National Asthma Education and Prevention Program) and GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) were formed to assist with best practice diagnosis and treatments for asthma. This paper reviews the subtle differences and similarities between the most recent recommendations put forth by NAEPP 2020 and GINA 2021, mainly examining the six selected topics, as well as methodology, guidance on emerging topics, and implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

In December 2020, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee released their focused update on fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, indoor allergen mitigation, inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, allergen immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty. The Global Initiative for Asthma comprehensive document is published annually as a framework for all nations. Therefore, it is timely to consider the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee 2020 in relation to the GINA 2021.

SUMMARY

The comparison provides a better understanding of evidence-based recommendations for asthma. The NAEPP 2020 and GINA 2021 will equip providers with the knowledge to provide their patients with the best and most updated asthma care.

Efficacy of one time per day, single-inhaler indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone in patients with inadequately controlled asthma: post hoc analysis of IRIDIUM study in Asian population

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The 52-week IRIDIUM study demonstrated the efficacy of indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone furoate (IND/GLY/MF) versus IND/MF and salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate (SAL/FLU) in patients with symptomatic asthma, despite long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) medium-dose or high-dose, predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) <80% and at least one exacerbation in the previous year. Here, we present data from a post hoc analysis of the IRIDIUM study in the Asian subpopulation.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis evaluated improvements in lung function, asthma control and reduction in asthma exacerbations with IND/GLY/MF medium- (150/50/80 µg) and high-dose (150/50/160 µg) versus IND/MF medium- (150/160 µg) and high-dose (150/320 µg), all one time per day and SAL/FLU high-dose (50/500 µg) two times per day, in Asian patients from the IRIDIUM study.

RESULTS

In total, 258 patients (IND/GLY/MF medium-dose, 52; IND/GLY/MF high-dose, 52; IND/MF medium-dose, 51; IND/MF high-dose, 51; SAL/FLU high-dose, 52) were included. IND/GLY/MF medium- and high-dose showed greater improvement in trough FEV1 at week 26 versus respective doses of IND/MF (Δ, 100 mL and 101 mL; both p<0.05, respectively), and SAL/FLU high-dose (Δ, 125 mL; p=0.0189, and 136 mL; p=0.0118, respectively), which were maintained over 52 weeks. Both doses of IND/GLY/MF showed greater improvement in morning and evening peak expiratory flow versus respective doses of IND/MF and SAL/FLU high-dose at week 52. The changes in Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 scores from baseline were comparable in all treatment groups. IND/GLY/MF medium- and high-dose showed greater reductions in severe (34%, 69%), moderate or severe (18%, 54%) and all exacerbations (21%, 34%) compared with SAL/FLU high-dose over 52 weeks.

CONCLUSION

One time per day, single-inhaler IND/GLY/MF improved lung function, reduced asthma exacerbations and provided comparable asthma control versus IND/MF and SAL/FLU in Asian patients with inadequately controlled asthma despite LABA/ICS. The results of this analysis were consistent with the overall population in the IRIDIUM study.