Clinical characterization of children with resistant airflow obstruction, a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize a cohort of children with airflow limitation resistant to bronchodilator (BD) therapy. METHODS: Pulmonary function tests performed in children 6-17 years of age at 15 centers in a clinical research consortium were screened for resistant airflow limitation, defined as a post-BD FEV1 and/or an FEV1/FVC less than the lower limits of normal. Demographic and clinical data were analyzed for associations with pulmonary function. RESULTS: 582 children were identified. Median age was 13 years (IQR: 11, 16), 60% were males; 62% were Caucasian, 28% were African-American; 19% were obese; 32% were born prematurely and 21% exposed to second hand smoke. Pulmonary diagnoses included asthma (93%), prior significant pneumonia (28%), and bronchiectasis (5%). 65% reported allergic rhinitis, and 11% chronic sinusitis. Subjects without a history of asthma had significantly lower post-BD FEV1% predicted (p = 0.008). Subjects without allergic rhinitis had lower post-BD FEV1% predicted (p = 0.003). Children with allergic rhinitis, male sex, obesity and Black race had better pulmonary function post-BD. There was lower pulmonary function in children after age 11 years without a history of allergic rhinitis, as compared to those with a history of allergic rhinitis. CONCLUSIONS: The most prevalent diagnosis in children with BD-resistant airflow limitation is asthma. Allergic rhinitis and premature birth are common co-morbidities. Children without a history of asthma, as well as those with asthma but no allergic rhinitis, had lower pulmonary function. Children with BD-resistant airflow limitation may represent a sub-group of children with persistent obstruction and high risk for life-long airway disease.

Validity of the Asthma Control Test Questionnaire Among Smoking Asthmatics.

BACKGROUND: Smoking asthmatics respond worse to existing asthma therapies and have more asthma symptoms and exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the Asthma Control Test (ACT) for assessing asthma control among smokers. METHODS: Adults with asthma who smoked were enrolled and followed for 6 weeks. The statistical properties, validity, and responsiveness of the ACT were evaluated. Physician global assessment (GS) of asthma was the "gold standard." RESULTS: A total of 151 participants were enrolled: 52% female and 48% male. The median (interquartile ranges) was 35 (27, 43) years for age, 11 (7, 18) for pack-years, and 16 (13, 20) for the ACT score. Participants self-identified as African American (49%), non-Hispanic whites (38%), and Hispanic whites (11%). Participants were classified as well controlled (24%), not well controlled (42%), or very poorly controlled (34%) at enrollment. Cronbach's alpha (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the ACT at enrollment was 0.81 (0.76, 0.85). The intraclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) for agreement of scores at enrollment and 6 weeks was 0.68 (0.57, 0.78) in participant with stable asthma (n = 93). ACT scores were associated with GS (P < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (95% CI) for an ACT cutoff score of ≤19 (not well controlled) was 0.76 (0.67, 0.84). The ACT score with the maximum area under the ROC curve was 18.6. CONCLUSIONS: The ACT questionnaire was reliable and discriminated between levels of asthma control in smoking asthmatics with similar sensitivity and specificity as nonsmoking asthmatics, which confirms its value as a tool for the management of asthma in this prevalent but understudied subgroup of subjects.

Step-Down Therapy for Asthma Well Controlled on Inhaled Corticosteroid and Long-Acting Beta-Agonist: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Stepping down therapy when asthma is well controlled on combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) is recommended, but it is not known whether lowering the ICS dose or stopping LABA is superior. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether step-down therapy with LABA is superior to one without; and, secondarily, to evaluate whether reducing the ICS dose while maintaining LABA is noninferior to remaining on stable-ICS/LABA. METHODS: The study was a randomized, double-masked 3-arm parallel group trial in participants aged 12 years or older. Following an 8-week run-in, 459 participants were randomly assigned to continue medium-dose ICS/LABA, reduced-dose ICS/LABA, or ICS alone (LABA-step-off) and followed for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, a composite of health care utilization, systemic corticosteroid use, increase in rescue therapy, decline in lung function, or participant or physician decision. RESULTS: Time to treatment failure did not differ significantly between reduced- ICS/LABA and LABA-step-off (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95.3% CI, 0.69-1.65, P = .76). Nor was there a difference between stable-ICS/LABA and reduced-ICS/LABA (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70-1.76; P = .67), but the 10% noninferiority margin was exceeded. Lung function declines and hospitalization rates were significantly greater in the LABA-step-off group. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 step-down regimens did not differ in terms of treatment failure, although stopping LABA was associated with a decline in lung function and more hospitalizations. There was no evidence to support the noninferiority of reduced-ICS/LABA as compared with stable-ICS/LABA.