Use of Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide to Guide the Treatment of Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: The fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FE_NO) test is a point-of-care test that is used in the assessment of asthma.

Objective: To provide evidence-based clinical guidance on whether FE_NO testing is indicated to optimize asthma treatment in patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered.

Methods: An international, multidisciplinary panel of experts was convened to form a consensus document regarding a single question relevant to the use of FE_NO. The question was selected from three potential questions based on the greatest perceived impact on clinical practice and the unmet need for evidence-based answers related to this question. The panel performed systematic reviews of published randomized controlled trials between 2004 and 2019 and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations. All panel members evaluated and approved the recommendations.

Main Results: After considering the overall low quality of the evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation for FE_NO-based care. In patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered, we suggest that FE_NO is beneficial and should be used in addition to usual care. This judgment is based on a balance of effects that probably favors the intervention; the moderate costs and availability of resources, which probably favors the intervention; and the perceived acceptability and feasibility of the intervention in daily practice.

Conclusions: Clinicians should consider this recommendation to measure FE_NO in patients with asthma in whom treatment is being considered based on current best available evidence.

Global Quality Standard for Identification and Management of Severe Asthma

INTRODUCTION

Severe asthma is a debilitating, life-threatening disease associated with substantial global morbidity, mortality, and health care resource utilization. Patients may not receive guideline-directed medical care for severe asthma. Moreover, viable precision-based assessment tools and newer preventive therapies that can reduce the frequency of exacerbations and associated functional impact are underused. As a result, high rates of poorly controlled severe asthma persist, and patient health-related quality of life suffers.

METHODS

In 2019, the Improve Access to Better Care Task Force of the PRECISION Steering Committee set out to develop a global template on quality standards for severe asthma care to support improved access to and delivery of quality care. This Quality Standard is grounded in the vast body of published evidence available for severe asthma care, published clinical guidelines (i.e., from the Global Initiative for Asthma in 2019 and the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society in 2014), and the 2018 PRECISION-supported Charter to Improve Patient Care in Severe Asthma.

RESULTS

The Quality Standard developed emphasizes four key elements aimed at optimizing clinical care and outcomes in severe asthma: (1) organization of services, (2) timely identification and referral for suspected severe asthma, (3) specialized assessment and management of severe asthma to optimize outcomes, and (4) patient-centric care and shared decision-making that is reflective of the patient's expectations, priorities, and values. Four key Quality Statements are provided, along with quality metrics and strategies for local adaptation to optimize implementation.

CONCLUSION

This Global Quality Standard is intended to mobilize policymakers, health care providers, and patient advocacy groups to build consensus on the definition and expectations of quality care in severe asthma, to promote patient-centric care, to identify gaps in care and areas for improvement, and systematically implement improvement measures and outcomes and to reduce the burden of illness for patients with severe asthma.

Does benralizumab effectively treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This study will systematically and comprehensively search relevant literatures in electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Global health, PsycINFO, Scopus, WANGFANG, and CNKI) from inception to the present without language and publication time restrictions. Two reviewers will independently carry out literature identification, data collection, and study quality assessment. Any disagreement will be settled down by a third reviewer through discussion and a consensus will be reached. RevMan 5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis performance.

RESULTS

This study will summarize up-to-date evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for the treatment of COPD.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study will provide helpful evidence to determine whether benralizumab is effective or not for the treatment of COPD.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

INPLASY202040039.

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.

Effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in asthmatic preschool children

The term "effectiveness" relates to the question of whether or not a certain treatment works in practice. Usually, such a treatment was first evaluated under tightly controlled conditions in selected patient populations, and the potential benefits were shown. There is, however, a great difference between the efficacy of a given treatment, indicating its optimal therapeutic action in controlled trials, and its effectiveness when applied to a less well-defined population of patients in daily practice. This is especially relevant for asthma in young children, where many factors are responsible for the difference. Among these are, first of all, the heterogeneity of the wheezing phenotype. Other factors include the compliance with prescribed treatments, as determined by the attitude of doctors and parents towards such treatment, the ease of administration and the perceived effects and side effects. Also, the performance of different inhaler devices may be insufficient for a good, reliable dose deposition in young children in daily life. As a result, the current treatment guidelines for preschool children with recurrent wheeze are probably too optimistic in assuming that inhaled treatment is most effective and feasible at all ages. We propose careful re-evaluation of such recommendations in a first-line setting resembling daily life as closely as possible, and consideration of oral treatments as well. Also, we need methods to separate the different phenotypes within the group of recurrently wheezing preschool children to optimize targeting of asthma treatment to those who have ongoing airway inflammation.

Evaluation of asthma control by physicians and patients: comparison with current guidelines

BACKGROUND

Current asthma consensus guidelines recommend a series of criteria for determining whether asthma is controlled. It is not known whether physicians are using these criteria to assess treatment needs and how effective such assessments are compared with patient assessment of asthma control.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the parameters used by physicians and patients with asthma to determine whether asthma control is acceptable, according to the current Canadian asthma consensus guidelines.

DATA AND METHODS

A total of 183 Canadian physicians, mostly general practitioners, evaluated 856 patients with mildly to moderately uncontrolled asthma who were not using anti-inflammatory medications at the time of entry in the study. Physician characteristics and patient demographics were obtained. The physicians completed two questionnaires, one assessing the level of asthma control of the patient on an ordinal scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good) and another indicating the parameters that were used to evaluate this level of control. Patients answered an asthma control questionnaire identical to the one completed by the physician and completed a six-question asthma control questionnaire, with each question scored on a 0- to 6-point scale.

RESULTS

Although according to current asthma guidelines all patients surveyed had uncontrolled asthma, 66.2% of patients and 43.3% of physicians rated control of asthma symptoms as adequate to very good. The average scores for patient- and physician-rated asthma control were 3.0 0.2 and 2.6 0.2, respectively. The average patient score on the Juniper asthma questionnaire was 12.2 6.3. Physicians used a mean of seven parameters to assess the patient's level of asthma control, mostly beta2-agonist need, followed by cough, wheezing, shortness of breath, limitation of physical activities and night-time awakenings. Pediatricians used cough more frequently as an evaluation parameter, and respirologists measured pulmonary function more often than other physcians. Some parameters not usually included in guideline criteria for control, such as fatigue, need to clear throat, colored sputum, headache and dizziness, were sometimes used by physicians. Only 10% and 18% of physicians used measurements of forced expiratory volume in 1 s and peak expiratory flow, respectively, in asthma control assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that the selection of asthma control criteria among physicians varies and is not always in keeping with current asthma guidelines. Both patients and physicians often consider asthma to be controlled, when according to current guidelines, it is not, and patients consider their asthma better controlled than do physicians. Objective measures of airflow obstruction are rarely used to assess asthma control. The present study stresses the need for improved dissemination - to both patients and physicians - of current recommendations on how asthma control should be determined.

Prescription of medications by primary care physicians in the light of asthma guidelines

The purpose of this study was the evaluation of the extent of dissemination of asthma guidelines among primary health care physicians in Greece. Sixty-five of 80 primary care physicians (response rate 80.2%) answered a questionnaire about asthma morbidity, manner of choice of treatment and asthma management plans. One out of 12 patients who were examined by a primary care physician suffered from bronchial asthma. Forty-two physicians treated their asthma patients according to the pulmonologist's recommendations, and only 15 prescribed asthma treatment according to asthma guidelines. beta 2-agonist inhalers and theophylline tablets represent 41% of all prescribed medicines in asthma and corticosteroid inhalers 24% of medications. Eight physicians prescribed theophylline as the first and 20 physicians corticosteroid inhalers as the third choice of medication in asthma treatment. Consequently, the prescription of beta 2-agonist inhalers and theophylline tablets seems to be higher than asthma guidelines recommend. Better dissemination of guidelines among specialists and primary health care physicians will hopefully make asthma management optimal.

Individual use of antiasthmatic drugs in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey

A previous analysis of drug utilization in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey found that only between 8 and 29% of subjects with asthma-related symptoms were using antiasthmatic medication in the different areas studied. The aim of this analysis was to investigate which variables were related to individual use of antiasthmatic medication in different geographical areas. Thirty-three centres in 14 countries were analysed, in which a total of 16,854 people (52.1% females, mean age 33.8 yrs, range 20-48) underwent a structured interview, measurement of specific immunoglobin E, spirometry and methacholine challenge test. The use of antiasthmatic drugs in individuals was, in most countries, independently related to asthma-related respiratory symptoms, bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) and atopy. In all countries smokers with respiratory symptoms were less likely to be using antiasthmatic drugs than nonsmokers and exsmokers. In four of 14 countries females were significantly more likely to use antiasthmatic medication than males, while age and socioeconomic status were unrelated to medication. The use of inhaled anti-inflammatory drugs was positively related to symptoms, BHR and atopy and negatively related to current smoking. In conclusion, in many countries smokers were less likely to be using antiasthmatic drugs than were nonsmokers with comparable levels of symptoms and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Age and socioeconomic status were unrelated to medication, while in some countries females were more likely than males to use antiasthmatic medication.

[Requirements for product quality of theophylline sustained-release preparations]

In consideration of the narrow therapeutic range and the pharmacology of theophylline (CAS 58-55-9), the pharmaceutic quality of sustained release theophylline preparations should be monitored carefully. During the last few years, the following pharmacokinetic study programme was established as quality criterion to verify the safety and predictability of theophylline concentration-time profiles: bioequivalence from batch to batch, lack of relevant food interaction, lack of relevant gastrointestinal pH or surfactant effects on absorption, pharmacokinetic profile following once-a-day and twice-a-day application, and pharmacokinetics in high-clearance patients. Smooth, predictable and safe concentration-time profiles can be guaranteed exclusively for preparations which fulfill all these quality criteria. Only such high quality formulations allow to reduce or even avoid therapeutic drug monitoring and can be considered as safe and effective drugs for the chronic treatment of asthma.

Comparative efficacy and safety of twice daily fluticasone propionate powder versus placebo in the treatment of moderate asthma

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate, an inhaled corticosteroid with negligible systemic bioavailability via the oral route, is efficacious in the treatment of asthma when administered via metered-dose inhaler.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled fluticasone propionate powder in patients with moderate asthma previously treated with an inhaled corticosteroid.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of 342 adolescent and adult patients with moderate asthma [forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) between 50% and 80% of predicted] treated previously by beclomethasone dipropionate or triamcinolone acetonide. Patients received fluticasone propionate powder 50 micrograms, 100 micrograms, 250 micrograms, or placebo via a breath-actuated inhalation device, the Diskhaler, twice daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Patients in the fluticasone propionate groups experienced a mean increase from baseline to endpoint in FEV1 ranging from 0.43 L to 0.47 L. Patients in the placebo group experienced a mean decrease from baseline of 0.22 L (P < .001). The probability of patients remaining in the study over time without developing signs of exacerbating asthma was significantly greater in the fluticasone propionate groups than in the placebo group (P = .001). Asthma symptom scores, supplemental rescue albuterol use, and number of nighttime awakenings due to asthma requiring treatment also improved significantly with all fluticasone propionate treatment regimens compared with placebo (P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences at endpoint among the three fluticasone propionate groups. No serious drug-related adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone propionate powder (50, 100, and 250 micrograms) was well-tolerated and significantly improved lung function in patients with moderate asthma.