Perspectives of mild asthma patients on maintenance versus as-needed preventer treatment regimens: a qualitative study

Mild asthma: Conundrums, complexities and the need to customize care

Mild and moderate asthma cover a wide range of asthma presentations, phenotypes and symptom burden, and account for the majority of people with asthma worldwide. Mild asthma has been difficult to define because of its heterogeneity and wide spectrum of impact and outcomes, including being associated with severe exacerbations. Assessment of mild-moderate asthma is best made by combining asthma symptom control and exacerbation risk as the principle means by which to determine treatment needs. Incontrovertible evidence and guidelines support treatment initiation with anti-inflammatory medication, completely avoiding reliever-only treatment of mild asthma. Shared decision making with patients and a treatable traits approach will ensure that a holistic approach is taken to maximize patient outcomes. Most importantly, mild asthma should be regarded as a reversible, potentially curable condition, remaining in long-term remission through minimizing triggers and optimizing care.

Evaluating the relationship between the type of rescue medication and the adequacy of asthma maintenance therapy

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines incorporate the option of a rapid onset bronchodilator (ROB) plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the relief of asthma symptoms, but there is doubt whether the combined therapy for relief could lead to suboptimal maintenance therapy since individuals might prefer it to the maintenance therapy. The objective of this study was to assess whether the type of rescue medication that the individual with asthma has available is associated with suboptimal maintenance therapy.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included non-smokers with asthma, ≥12 years old. The individuals attended an appointment with a physician, responded questionnaires and performed a spirometry. Adjusted regression analysis evaluated whether the type of rescue medication was associated with suboptimal maintenance therapy.

RESULTS

We enrolled 953 individuals, of which 221 reported having no rescue medication, 171 carried any ROB + ICS for symptoms relief and 561 carried SABA alone to rescue. The frequency of suboptimal maintenance therapy was not different between individuals carrying the combination and those carrying SABA alone for symptoms relief, but individuals who reported having no rescue medication had less suboptimal maintenance therapy (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of suboptimal maintenance therapy for asthma was similar between individuals carrying any ROB + ICS for symptoms relief and those carrying SABA alone to rescue, whilst it was less frequent in the group that reported not having any reliever medication. Data from this study indicate that recent changes in asthma guidelines regarding the use of rescue medication have little risk of impairing maintenance therapy.

European Respiratory Society short guidelines for the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma

Recent clinical trials of as-needed fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol have provided new evidence that may warrant a reconsideration of current practice. A Task Force was set up by the European Respiratory Society to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol as treatment for mild asthma. The Task Force defined two questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The Task Force utilised the outcomes to develop recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday clinical practice. The Task Force suggests that adults with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of regular ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed short-acting β2-antagonist (SABA) and that adolescents with mild asthma use either as-needed ICS/formoterol or ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed SABA (conditional recommendation; low certainty of evidence). The recommendation for adults places a relatively higher value on the reduction of systemic corticosteroid use and the outcomes related to exacerbations, and a relatively lower value on the small differences in asthma control. Either treatment option is suggested for adolescent patients as the balance is very close and data more limited. The Task Force recommends that adult and adolescent patients with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of as-needed SABA (strong recommendation; low certainty of evidence). This recommendation is based on the benefit of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma on several outcomes and the risks related to as-needed SABA in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. The implementation of this recommendation is hampered in countries (including European Union countries) where as-needed ICS/formoterol is not approved for mild asthma.

Safety and Effectiveness of As-Needed Formoterol in Asthma Patients Taking Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS)-Formoterol or ICS-Salmeterol Maintenance Therapy

BACKGROUND

As-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever is recommended in patients with asthma prescribed maintenance ICS-formoterol. Clinicians often ask whether ICS-formoterol reliever can be used with other maintenance ICS-long-acting β2-agonists.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of as-needed formoterol in patients taking maintenance ICS-formoterol or ICS-salmeterol from the RELIEF study.

METHODS

RELIEF (SD-037-0699) was a 6-month, open-label study that randomized 18,124 patients with asthma to as-needed formoterol 4.5 μg or salbutamol 200 μg on top of maintenance therapy. This post hoc analysis included patients on maintenance ICS-formoterol or ICS-salmeterol (n = 5436). The primary safety outcome was a composite of serious adverse events (SAEs) and/or adverse events leading to discontinuation (DAEs); the primary effectiveness outcome was time-to-first exacerbation.

RESULTS

For both maintenance groups and both relievers, similar numbers of patients had ≥1 SAE and/or DAE. In patients taking maintenance ICS-salmeterol, but not ICS-formoterol, significantly more non-asthma-related and nonserious DAEs occurred with as-needed formoterol versus as-needed salbutamol (P = .0066 and P = .0034, respectively). In patients taking maintenance ICS-formoterol, there was a significantly lower risk in time-to-first exacerbation with as-needed formoterol versus as-needed salbutamol (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70, 0.95; P = .007). In patients taking ICS-salmeterol maintenance, time-to-first exacerbation was not significantly different between treatment arms (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.84, 1.06; P = .35).

CONCLUSIONS

As-needed formoterol significantly reduced exacerbation risk compared with as-needed salbutamol when added to maintenance ICS-formoterol, but not to maintenance ICS-salmeterol. More DAEs were seen with ICS-salmeterol maintenance therapy plus as-needed formoterol. Further research is needed to assess whether this is relevant to as-needed combination ICS-formoterol.

Integrating qualitative interviews in drug development and the use of qualitative evidence in product labelling and health technology assessments: a review

Objective

Including qualitative research in clinical trial design is an innovative approach to understanding patients' perspective and incorporate the patient's voice in all stages of drug development and evaluation. This review aims to explore current practices, lessons learned from the literature, as well as how qualitative interviews are considered by health authorities for marketing authorization and reimbursement.

Methods

A targeted literature review of Medline and Embase databases was conducted in February 2022 to identify publications on qualitative methods embedded in clinical trial of pharmaceutical products. An additional search of guidelines and labeling claims of approved products regarding qualitative research was performed in various sources of grey literature.

Results

From the 24 publications and nine documents reviewed, we identified the research questions addressed with qualitative methods during clinical trials (e.g., change in quality of life, symptoms assessment, treatment benefit), preferred data collection methods (e.g., interviews), and data collection points (e.g., baseline and exit interviews). Moreover, the data from labels and HTAs demonstrate that qualitative data can play an important role in approval processes.

Conclusion

The use of in-trial interviews is still emerging and is not yet common practice. Although the industry, scientific community, regulatory agencies and HTAs are showing an increasing interest in the use of evidence generated via in-trial interviews, guidance from regulators and HTAs would be helpful. Developing new methods and technologies to address the common challenges for such interviews is key to progress.

Mild asthma: Lessons learned and remaining questions

Patients living with mild disease represent the largest proportion of asthma patients. There are significant challenges in proposing a definition that would best describe these patients, while also accurately identifying at-risk individuals. Current literature suggests considerable inflammatory and clinical heterogeneity within this group. Research has shown that these patients are at risk of poor control, exacerbations, lung function decline, and death. Despite conflicting data on its prevalence, eosinophilic inflammation appears to be a predictor of poorer outcomes in mild asthma. There is an immediate need to better understand phenotypic clusters in mild asthma. It is also important to understand factors that influence disease progression and remission, as it is evident that both vary in mild asthma. Guided by robust literature that supports inhaled corticosteroid-based strategies over short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliant regimens, the management of these patients has evolved considerably. Unfortunately, SABA use remains high in clinical practice despite strong advocacy from the Global Initiative for Asthma. Future mild asthma research should explore the role of biomarkers, develop prediction tools based on composite risk scores, and explore targeted therapies at least for at-risk individuals.

Questions in Mild Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Patients with mild asthma are believed to represent the majority of patients with asthma. Disease-associated risks such as exacerbations, lung function decline, and death have been understudied in this patient population. There have been no prior efforts from major societies to describe research needs in mild asthma. Methods: A multidisciplinary, diverse group of 24 international experts reviewed the literature, identified knowledge gaps, and provided research recommendations relating to mild asthma definition, pathophysiology, and management across all age groups. Research needs were also investigated from a patient perspective, generated in conjunction with patients with asthma, caregivers, and stakeholders. Of note, this project is not a systematic review of the evidence and is not a clinical practice guideline. Results: There are multiple unmet needs in research on mild asthma driven by large knowledge gaps in all areas. Specifically, there is an immediate need for a robust mild asthma definition and an improved understanding of its pathophysiology and management strategies across all age groups. Future research must factor in patient perspectives. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in severe asthma, there remain innumerable research areas requiring urgent attention in mild asthma. An important first step is to determine a better definition that will accurately reflect the heterogeneity and risks noted in this group. This research statement highlights the topics of research that are of the highest priority. Furthermore, it firmly advocates the need for engagement with patient groups and for more support for research in this field.

"As-Needed" Inhaled Corticosteroids for Patients With Asthma

Prevention of severe asthma exacerbations is a primary management goal for asthma across the severity spectrum. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) decrease the risk of asthma exacerbations, but patient adherence to ICS-containing medications as a daily maintenance therapy is poor, and many patients overuse short-acting beta2-agonist relievers; both are associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations and death. Airway inflammation also varies over time, influenced by exposures such as viral infections and allergen. As-needed ICS strategies, in which patients receive ICSs (or additional ICSs, if already taking controller therapy) whenever they take their reliever inhaler, empower patients to adjust their ICS intake in response to symptom fluctuation. These strategies can improve asthma morbidity outcomes, particularly by reducing severe exacerbations and reducing the risk of adverse effects of oral corticosteroids. In this review, the evidence for combination ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler, ICS and short-acting beta2-agonists in separate inhalers, and combination ICS-albuterol in a single inhaler is presented, along with practical considerations, evidence gaps, and implications for clinical practice for each strategy, presented by level of asthma severity and age group. Improving access to such strategies on a global scale is imperative to improve asthma outcomes and achieve equity across populations.

The ICS/Formoterol Reliever Therapy Regimen in Asthma: A Review

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol be preferred to short-acting beta₂-agonists as reliever therapy in adolescents and adults with asthma, across the range of asthma severity. This recommendation represents the most fundamental change in asthma management for many decades. In this commentary, we review the rationale for combination ICS/formoterol therapy, the evidence on which this recommendation has been made, the limitations in the evidence, the practical issues relevant to the implementation of ICS/formoterol reliever-based regimens in clinical practice, and the emerging evidence for the efficacy and safety of combination ICS/salbutamol reliever therapy regimens.

Asthma control with ICS-formoterol reliever versus maintenance ICS and SABA reliever therapy: a post hoc analysis of two randomised controlled trials

Background

In randomised controlled trials, as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever therapy reduces severe exacerbation risk compared with maintenance ICS plus short-acting beta₂-agonist (SABA) reliever in adolescent and adult asthma, but results in slightly worse control of asthma symptoms, as measured by mean Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) score.

Objective

To assess the levels and changes in asthma control for as-needed budesonide–formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA in post hoc analyses from the Novel START and PRACTICAL clinical trials.

Methods

The number and proportion of participants at study end in each ACQ-5 category (‘well-controlled’, ‘partly controlled’ or ‘inadequately controlled’ symptoms), and in each responder category based on the minimal clinically important difference for ACQ-5 of 0.5 (improved, no change and worse) with as-needed budesonide–formoterol and maintenance budesonide plus SABA treatment were calculated.

Results

With last observation carried forwards, 189/214 (88.3%) and 354/434 (81.6%) of patients in the budesonide–formoterol group had ‘well-controlled’ or ‘partly controlled’ symptoms at the end of the study, vs 183/214 (85.5%) and 358/431 (83.1%) in the budesonide maintenance group, for Novel START and PRACTICAL, respectively. The proportion of patients whose symptom control was either improved or unchanged from baseline was 190/214 (88.8%) and 368/434 (84.8%) for budesonide–formoterol, vs 185/214 (86.4%) and 376/431 (87.2%) for maintenance budesonide, in Novel START and PRACTICAL respectively.

Conclusions

There were no clinically important differences in the proportions of patients with ‘well-controlled’ or ‘partly controlled’ asthma symptoms, or proportions who improved or maintained their level of control, with as-needed budesonide–formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA.