Economic Consequences of the Overuse of Short-Acting ß-Adrenergic Agonists in the Treatment of Asthma in Spain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between short-acting ß-adrenergic agonist (SABA) overuse and health care resource use and costs in asthma patients in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A longitudinal retrospective study was conducted in Spanish primary and specialized care centers using the BIG-PAC medical records database. The study population comprised asthma patients ≥12 years of age who attended ≥2 consultations during 2017 and had 1-year follow-up data available. The main outcomes were demographics, comorbidities, medication, and clinical and health care resource use and costs. The relationship between SABA overuse and health care costs and between asthma severity and health care costs was determined. RESULTS: The SABA use IN Asthma (SABINA) study included 39 555 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 49.8 (20.7) years (64.2% female). The Charlson comorbidity index was 0.7 (1.0). SABA overuse (≥3 canisters/y) was 28.7% (95%CI, 27.7-29.7), with a mean of 3.3 (3.6) canisters/y. Overall, 5.1% of patients were prescribed ≥12 canisters/y. SABA overuse was correlated with health care costs (ρ=0.621; P<.001). The adjusted mean annual cost/patient according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA 2019) classification of asthma severity was €2231, €2345, €2735, €3473, and €4243 for steps 1-5, respectively (P<.001). Regardless of asthma severity, SABA overuse yielded a significant increase in health care costs per patient and year (€5702 vs €1917, P<.001) compared with recommended use (<2 canisters/y). CONCLUSION: SABA overuse yields high costs for the Spanish National Health System. Costs increased with severity of asthma.

Exacerbations Among Patients With Asthma Are Largely Dependent on the Presence of Multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Comorbidities can influence asthma control and promote asthma exacerbations (AEs). However, the impact of multimorbidity in AEs, assessed based on long-term follow-up of patients with asthma of different degrees of severity, has received little attention in real-life conditions. To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics and predictors of AEs in patients who had presented at least 1 AE in the previous year in the MEchanism of Genesis and Evolution of Asthma (MEGA) cohort. METHODS: The work-up included a detailed clinical examination, pulmonary function testing, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), blood counts, induced sputum, skin prick-tests, asthma questionnaires, and assessment of multimorbidity. The number of moderate-severe AEs in the preceding year was registered for each patient. RESULTS: The study population comprised 486 patients with asthma (23.7% mild, 35% moderate, 41.3% severe). Disease remained uncontrolled in 41.9%, and 47.3% presented ≥1 moderate-severe AE, with a mean (SD) annual exacerbation rate of 0.47 (0.91) vs 2.11 (2.82) in mild and severe asthma, respectively. Comorbidity was detected in 56.4% (66.6% among those with severe asthma). Bronchiectasis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, atopy, psychiatric illnesses, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension were significantly associated with AEs. No associations were found for FeNO, blood eosinophils, or total serum IgE. Sputum eosinophilia and a high-T2 inflammatory pattern were significantly associated with AEs. Multivariable regression analysis showed a significant association with asthma severity, uncontrolled disease, and low prebronchodilator FEV1/FVC. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed a high frequency of AE in the MEGA cohort. This was strongly associated with multimorbidity, asthma severity, poor asthma control, airflow obstruction, higher sputum eosinophils, and a very high-T2 inflammatory pattern.

Improvement in Olfaction in Patients With CRSwNP and Severe Asthma Taking Anti-IgE and Anti-IL-5 Biologics: A Real-Life Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), which is characterized by partial loss of smell (hyposmia) or total loss of smell (anosmia), is commonly associated with asthma and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD). CRSwNP worsens disease severity and quality of life. The objective of this real-world study was to determine whether biological treatments prescribed for severe asthma can improve olfaction in patients with CRSwNP. A further objective was to compare the improvement in in olfaction in N-ERD and non-N-ERD subgroups. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective, observational study of 206 patients with severe asthma and CRSwNP undergoing biological treatment (omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab). RESULTS: Olfaction improved after treatment with all 4 monoclonal antibodies (omalizumab [35.8%], mepolizumab [35.4%], reslizumab [35.7%], and benralizumab [39.1%]), with no differences between the groups. Olfaction was more likely to improve in patients with atopy, more frequent use of short-course systemic corticosteroids, and larger polyp size. The proportion of patients whose olfaction improved was similar between the N-ERD (37%) and non-N-ERD (35.7%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first real-world study to compare improvement in olfaction among patients undergoing long-term treatment with omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, or benralizumab for severe asthma and associated CRSwNP. Approximately 4 out of 10 patients reported a subjective improvement in olfaction (with nonsignificant differences between biologic drugs). No differences were found for improved olfaction between the N-ERD and non-N-ERD groups.

Response to Monoclonal Antibodies in Asthma: Definitions, Potential Reasons for Failure, and Therapeutic Options for Suboptimal Response.

Real-life data reveal that more than half of severe asthma patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) do not achieve a complete response. Response to mAbs must be assessed holistically, considering all the clinically meaningful therapeutic goals, not only reduction of exacerbations and oral corticosteroids. There are 2 different ways of measuring the response to mAbs. One, qualitative, classifies patients according to the degree of disease control they have achieved, without explaining how much a given patient improves relative to the baseline (pre-mAb) clinical situation; the other, quantitative, scores the changes occurring after treatment. Both methods are complementary and essential to making clinical decisions on whether to continue treatment. The various potential causes of suboptimal response to mAbs include incorrect identification of the specific T2 pathways, comorbidities that reduce the room for improvement, insufficient dose, autoimmune phenomena, infections, change in the initial inflammatory endotype, and adverse events. Once a suboptimal response has been confirmed, a well-structured and multifaceted assessment of the potential causes of failure should be performed, with emphasis on the resulting inflammatory process of the airway after mAb therapy and the presence of chronic or recurrent infection. This investigation should guide the decision on the best therapeutic approach. The present review aims to help clinicians gain insights into how to measure response to mAbs and proceed in cases of suboptimal response.

Functional Examination of the Upper and Lower Airways in Asthma and Respiratory Allergic Diseases: Considerations in the Post-SARS-CoV-2 Era.

Airway examination procedures can potentially transmit infectious diseases to patients and to the health care professionals who perform them via various mechanisms. The COVID-19 pandemic has halted most of the activity of the clinics and laboratories involved in assessment of lung and nasal function, and clear recommendations in this regard have been made. Today, we still do not know for sure what its consequences will be in the short or long term, since important gaps remain in our knowledge of aspects as fundamental as virus transmission mechanisms, pathophysiology, immune response, and diagnosis. In this review, we study the examination techniques used to assess patients with respiratory allergy, asthma, and associated diseases during this period and highlight their possible advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, we focus on exploring the entire upper and lower airways, from the perspective of the safety of both health professionals and patients and their specific characteristics. We also analyze the intrinsic value of these interventions in terms of diagnosis and patient management. The changing situation of COVID-19 may mean that some of the assertions presented in this review will have to be modified in the future. While we seek to ensure a consistently broad approach, some differences in operational details may apply owing to local regulations.

Assessing Adherence by Combining the Test of Adherence to Inhalers With Pharmacy Refill Records.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends the concurrent use of self-report and pharmacy refill data to assess treatment adherence. However, clinical evidence to support this combined approach is limited. Objective: To determine nonadherence to inhaler medication based on a validated questionnaire (Test of Adherence to Inhalers; TAI) and prescription refill data in a community sample of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma. Secondarily, we sought to determine the degree of concordance between these two measures. METHODS: Cross-sectional, observational multicenter study in patients with asthma or COPD. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained from clinical records. Refill data were retrieved from electronic pharmacy databases. Participants completed the 12-item TAI during a single visit as part of routine care. Nonadherence was defined as TAI <50 or <80% pharmacy refill rate (PRR) in the previous 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 816 patients (mean age, 60) were included. Nonadherence rates were 58.1% (TAI) and 28.6% (PRR) compared with 64.6% for the combined data (P<.0001). Concordance between the 2 measures was weak (к=0.205). CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the GINA recommendations, indicating that concomitant use of the TAI and pharmacy refill data identifies a higher percentage of nonadherent asthma or COPD patients than either instrument alone.

Clinical Factors Associated With Overuse of Asthma Reliever Medication.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the relationship between the clinical factors of asthma and the use of reliever medication. METHODS: We performed an observational cross-sectional study in Spain. The study population comprised patients aged ≥12 years diagnosed with persistent asthma according to the criteria of the Global Initiative for Asthma and receiving maintenance treatment for at least 12 months. Use of reliever medication was classified as low use of reliever medication (LURM) (≤2 times/wk) and high use of reliever medication (HURM) (≥3 times/wk). A variety of clinical variables and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded (eg, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 [ACQ-5] and Test of Adherence to Inhalers [TAI]). RESULTS: A total of 406 patients were recruited. Mean (SD) age was 44.3 (17.9) years, and 64% were women. Reliever medication was used ≤2 times/wk in 76.1%. Bivariate analysis showed that HURM was related to smoking habit, unscheduled emergency department visits, hospital admissions, higher doses of inhaled corticosteroid, and night awakenings in the previous 4 weeks (P<.001). The multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of using reliever medication in smokers and former smokers, when the number of night awakenings increased, in cases of self-perception of partially controlled or uncontrolled asthma, or when asthma is uncontrolled according to the ACQ-5. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identifies the potential of poor use of reliever medication in the last week as an alarm signal for disease-related parameters such as exacerbations, poor asthma control, and disease severity.

Dilemmas and New Paradigms in Asthma Management.

Asthma is one of the most common inflammatory diseases in the world. The main goal of treatment is to achieve optimal control. Although every patient is different, clinical practice guidelines can help physicians to manage the disease. However, the recommendations made by guidelines are not always identical, and the continuous release of new data on the various management strategies can mislead both patients and physicians. We aim to summarize the main controversies in management and treatment recommendations in asthma guidelines, revise the most recent scientific evidence, and pinpoint possible solutions. We do not issue new recommendations or challenge evidence-based guidelines. We concluded that more tools are necessary to achieve and measure optimal asthma control and to better assess the impact of asthma on patients' lives. Also essential is a more accurate appraisal of the short-term and long-term effectiveness and safety of asthma therapies and the possibilities of successful immunomodulation.