Two pathways, one patient; UK asthma guidelines

Can we measure whether asthma guidelines lead to improved care?

The British Thoracic Society (BTS) and Scottish Intercollege Guidelines Network (SIGN), as well as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), have previously produced separate asthma guidance differing in some key aspects in diagnosis and management leading to confusion, potentially hampering guideline dissemination and uptake. While there are inherent challenges, the upcoming release of new joint BTS/SIGN/NICE asthma guidance presents an opportunity to assess guideline adoption and its impact on clinical practice. The use of prescription data via databases such as OpenPrescribing can be used as a surrogate for guideline adoption and potentially linked to clinical outcomes such as hospital episode statistics (HES). The potential recommendation for anti-inflammatory reliever therapy (AIR) and maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol combination therapy in the next iteration of UK asthma guidance will require the accurate coding for the respective therapeutic approaches on prescribing platforms in order to assess their impact in real-life clinical practice. This could then direct targeted measures to improve wider guidance adoption leading to better clinical care in asthma based on up to date evidence.

Asthma diagnosis: into the fourth dimension

Asthma is the most common chronic respiratory disease in the UK; however, the misdiagnosis rate is substantial. The lack of consistency in national guidelines and the paucity of data on the performance of diagnostic algorithms compound the challenges in asthma diagnosis. Asthma is a highly rhythmic disease, characterised by diurnal variability in clinical symptoms and pathogenesis. Asthma also varies day to day, seasonally and from year to year. As much as it is a hallmark for asthma, this variability also poses significant challenges to asthma diagnosis. Almost all established asthma diagnostic tools demonstrate diurnal variation, yet few are performed with standardised timing of measurements. The dichotomous interpretation of diagnostic outcomes using fixed cut-off values may further limit the accuracy of the tests, particularly when diurnal variability straddles cut-off values within a day, and careful interpretation beyond the 'positive' and 'negative' outcome is needed. The day-to-day and more long-term variations are less predictable and it is unclear whether performing asthma diagnostic tests during asymptomatic periods may influence diagnostic sensitivities. With the evolution of asthma diagnostic tools, home monitoring and digital apps, novel strategies are needed to bridge these gaps in knowledge, and circadian variability should be considered during the standardisation process. This review summarises the biological mechanisms of circadian rhythms in asthma and highlights novel data on the significance of time (the fourth dimension) in asthma diagnosis.

Health and cost impact of stepping down asthma medication for UK patients, 2001-2017: A population-based observational study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend stepping down asthma treatment to the minimum effective dose to achieve symptom control, prevent adverse side effects, and reduce costs. Limited data exist on asthma prescription patterns in a real-world setting. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of doses prescribed to a UK general asthma population and assess whether stepping down medication increased exacerbations or reliever use, as well as its impact on costs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used nationwide UK primary care medical records, 2001-2017, to identify 508,459 adult asthma patients managed with preventer medication. Prescriptions of higher-level medication: medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or ICSs + add-on medication (long-acting β2-agonist [LABA], leukotriene receptor antagonist [LTRA], theophylline, or long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) steadily increased over time (2001 = 49.8%, 2017 = 68.3%). Of those prescribed their first preventer, one-third were prescribed a higher-level medication, of whom half had no reliever prescription or exacerbation in the year prior. Of patients first prescribed ICSs + 1 add-on, 70.4% remained on the same medication during a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Of those prescribed medium/high-dose ICSs as their first preventer, 13.0% already had documented diabetes, cataracts, glaucoma, or osteopenia/osteoporosis. A cohort of 125,341 patients were drawn to assess the impact of stepping down medication: mean age 50.4 years, 39.4% males, 39,881 stepped down. Exposed patients were stepped down by dropping their LABAs or another add-on or by halving their ICS dose (halving their mean-daily dose or their inhaler dose). The primary and secondary outcomes were, respectively, exacerbations and an increase in reliever prescriptions. Multivariable regression was used to assess outcomes and determine the prognostic factors for initiating stepdown. There was no increased exacerbation risk for each possible medication stepdown (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.86, 0.77-0.93, p < 0.001; ICS mean daily = 0.80, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.001; LABA = 1.01, 0.92-1.11, p = 0.87, other add-on = 1.00, 0.91-1.09, p = 0.79) and no increase in reliever prescriptions (adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.99, 0.98-1.00, p = 0.59; ICS mean daily = 0.78, 0.76-0.79, p < 0.001; LABA = 0.83, 0.82-0.85, p < 0.001; other add-on = 0.86, 0.85-0.87, p < 0.001). Prognostic factors to initiate stepdown included medication burden, but not medication side effects. National Health Service (NHS) indicative prices were used for cost estimates. Stepping down medication, either LABAs or ICSs, could save annually around £17,000,000 or £8,600,000, respectively. Study limitations include the possibility that prescribed medication may not have been dispensed or adhered to and the reason for stepdown was not documented.

CONCLUSION

In this UK study, we observed that asthma patients were increasingly prescribed higher levels of treatment, often without clear clinical indication for such high doses. Stepping down medication did not adversely affect outcomes and was associated with substantial cost savings.

A Role for Alveolar Exhaled Nitric Oxide Measurement in the Diagnosis of Hepatopulmonary Syndrome

GOALS

The authors sought to characterize predominantly alveolar exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) in hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) compared with non-HPS, changes after liver transplantation, and diagnostic properties.

BACKGROUND

HPS is defined by liver disease, intrapulmonary vascular dilatations (IPVDs), and hypoxemia. Rat models and small human studies suggest that NO overproduction may cause IPVDs.

STUDY

A retrospective review of the Canadian HPS Database (2007 to 2017) and prospective eNO measurement (main outcome) in healthy controls (measurement expiratory flow, 200 mL/s). HPS was defined as: (1) liver disease; (2) contrast echocardiography consistent with IPVDs; and (3) partial pressure of arterial oxygen <70 mm Hg with alveolar-arterial gradient >20 mm Hg; subclinical HPS as criteria (1) and (2) only; and no HPS as criterion (1) only. Current smokers and subjects with asthma or pulmonary hypertension were excluded. A linear mixed effects model was used to compare eNO between groups and before and after transplantation.

RESULTS

eNO was 10.4±0.7 ppb in HPS (n=26); 8.3±0.6 ppb in subclinical HPS (n=38); 7.1±1.0 ppb in no HPS (n=15); and 5.6±0.7 ppb in controls (n=30) (P<0.001). eNO decreased from 10.9±0.8 ppb preliver to 6.3±0.8 ppb postliver transplant (n=6 HPS, 6 subclinical HPS) (P<0.001). eNO <6 ppb was 84.4% (73.1% to 92.2%) sensitive and ≥12 ppb was 78.1% (69.4% to 85.3%) specific for HPS (vs. subclinical HPS).

CONCLUSIONS

HPS subjects have higher alveolar eNO than non-HPS subjects, levels normalize with liver transplantation. Applying eNO cutoff values may aid in HPS diagnosis.

Asthma Diagnosis: The Changing Face of Guidelines

Asthma, the most common chronic respiratory disease, is frequently misdiagnosed, and accounts for a significant proportion of healthcare expenditure. This has driven the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom (UK) to produce recent guidance; in places, this contrasts to that of the British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (BTS/SIGN), which have been producing their own guidance since 2003. Here we review the history of asthma diagnostic guidelines, and compare and review the evidence behind them, in adults and in children. We discuss the definitions of asthma and how these drive the concepts behind diagnostic strategies. We anticipate future directions in asthma diagnosis which will take into account the concepts of personalised medicine and disease endotypes. We also consider the utility of tests in use now and in the future, in particular novel tests relating to small airway inflammation and obstruction.

Over- and under-diagnosis in asthma

Asthma is extremely common with a prevalence of approximately 10% in Europe. It presents with symptoms which have a broad differential diagnosis and examination can be entirely normal. There is no agreed gold standard to diagnose asthma, and the objective tests that can aid diagnosis are often poorly available to primary care physicians. There is evidence that asthma is widely misdiagnosed. Overdiagnosis leads to unnecessary treatment and a delay in making an alternative diagnosis. Underdiagnosis risks daily symptoms, (potentially serious) exacerbations and long-term airway remodelling. An agreed standardised approach to diagnosis, with inclusion of objective measurements prior to treatment, is required to reduce misdiagnosis of asthma.

Asthma is frequently misdiagnosed. Both over- and under-diagnosis are associated with inappropriate treatment and potential patient harm. Although no gold standard diagnostic test is available, objective testing can improve diagnostic accuracy.http://ow.ly/Ej3830ohfxJ