Antileukotriene Agents Versus Long-Acting Beta-Agonists in Older Adults with Persistent Asthma: A Comparison of Add-On Therapies

Asthma and Cardiovascular Diseases: Navigating Mutual Pharmacological Interferences

Asthma and cardiovascular disease (CVD) often co-exist. When a patient has both conditions, management requires an approach that addresses the unique challenges of each condition separately, while also considering their potential interactions. However, specific guidance on the management of asthma in patients with CVD and on the management of CVD in patients with asthma is still lacking. Nevertheless, health care providers need to adopt a comprehensive approach that includes both respiratory and CVD health. The management of CVD in patients with asthma requires a delicate balance between controlling respiratory symptoms and minimising potential cardiovascular (CV) risks. In the absence of specific guidelines for the management of patients with both conditions, the most prudent approach would be to follow established guidelines for each condition independently. Careful selection of asthma medications is essential to avoid exacerbation of CV symptoms. In addition, optimal management of CV risk factors is essential. However, close monitoring of these patients is important as there is evidence that some asthma medications may have adverse effects on CVD and, conversely, that some CVD medications may worsen asthma symptoms. On the other hand, there is also increasing evidence of the potential beneficial effects of asthma medications on CVD and, conversely, that some CVD medications may reduce the severity of asthma symptoms. We aim to elucidate the potential risks and benefits associated with the use of asthma medications in patients with CVD, and the potential pulmonary risks and benefits for patients with asthma who are prescribed CVD medications.

A systematic literature review of burden of illness in adults with uncontrolled moderate/severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There are limited published data on the burden of moderate/severe uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to better understand the impact of moderate-to-severe asthma in the US, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, and Australia in terms of prevalence, clinical measures, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and economic burden, for patients whose asthma is uncontrolled despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy.

RESULTS

The prevalence of uncontrolled asthma among patients with moderate/severe disease varied but was as high as 100% in some subgroups. Patients with uncontrolled asthma generally had poor lung function (mean/median pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]: 1.69-2.45 L; mean/median pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV₁: 57.2-79.7). There was also a substantial but variable exacerbation burden associated with uncontrolled asthma, with the annualised rate of exacerbations ranging from 1.30 to 7.30 when considering various patient subgroups. Furthermore, the annualised rate of severe exacerbations ranged from 1.66 to 3.60. The HRQoL burden measured using disease-specific and generic instruments consistently demonstrated substantial impairment of HRQoL for those with uncontrolled asthma; Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores ranged from 3.00 to 5.20, whilst EurQol-5 Dimensions index scores ranged from 0.53 to 0.59. Direct, indirect and total costs together with consumption of other healthcare resources associated with managing uncontrolled asthma were also substantial in the population studied; no caregiver burden was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that significant unmet needs exist for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite the availability of ICS/LABA therapy. Novel treatments are needed to help reduce the burden to patients, healthcare systems and society.

Economic Burden Associated with Receiving Inhaled Corticosteroids with Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists or Long-Acting Beta Agonists as Combination Therapy in Older Adults

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature on the health care expenditures associated with different pharmacologic treatments in older adults with asthma that is not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

OBJECTIVE

To compare asthma-related and all-cause health care expenditures associated with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) versus long-acting beta agonists (LABA) when added to ICS in older adults with asthma.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort was constructed using 2009-2010 Medicare fee-for-service medical and pharmacy claims from a 10% random sample of beneficiaries continuously enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2009. The sample comprised patients who were aged 65 years and older, diagnosed with asthma, and treated exclusively with ICS + LABA or ICS + LTRA. Outcomes assessed were asthma-related expenditures (medical, pharmacy, and total) and all-cause health care expenditures (medical, pharmacy, and total). Outcomes were measured from the date of the first prescription for the add-on treatment (LABA or LTRA in combination with ICS) after having at least a 4-month "wash-in" period in which patients were receiving no controller, ICS alone, or ICS plus the add-on treatment of the follow-up period. Patients were followed until death, switching to or adding the other add-on treatment, or the end of the study (December 31, 2010). Multivariable regression models with nonparametric bootstrapped standard errors were used to compare all-cause and asthma-related expenditures per patient per month (PPPM) between ICS + LABA and ICS + LTRA users. All models were adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and county-level health care access variables.

RESULTS

The primary analysis included 14,702 patients, of whom 12,940 were treated with ICS + LABA and 1,762 were treated with ICS + LTRA. The mean (SD) follow-up periods were 12.3 (± 5.7) months for the ICS + LABA group and 15.3 (± 5.1) months for the ICS + LTRA group. Adjusted asthma-related expenditures PPPM were $400 for the ICS + LTRA group compared with $286 for the ICS + LABA group (P < 0.001). However, adjusted total all-cause expenditure PPPM was significantly lower for patients treated with ICS + LTRA ($6,087 for ICS + LTRA compared with $6,975 for ICS + LABA, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with asthma often experience economic burden from asthma and other chronic illnesses. Compared with ICS + LTRA, ICS + LABA was associated with lower asthma-related expenditures but with higher all-cause expenditures in older adults.

DISCLOSURES

Support for this study was provided by the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy and the Pittsburgh Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (NIA P30 AGAG024827). C. Thorpe reports grants from the National Institute of Aging during the conduct of this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.