Prevalence, Diagnostic Utility and Associated Characteristics of Bronchodilator Responsiveness.

Rationale: The prevalence and diagnostic utility of bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in a real-life setting is unclear. Objective: To explore this uncertainty in patients aged ⩾12 years with physician-assigned diagnoses of asthma, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or COPD in NOVELTY, a prospective cohort study in primary and secondary care in 18 countries. Methods: The proportion of patients with a positive BDR test in each diagnostic category was calculated using 2005 (ΔFEV1 or ΔFVC ⩾12% and ⩾200 ml) and 2021 (ΔFEV1 or ΔFVC >10% predicted) European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria. Measurements and Main Results: We studied 3,519 patients with a physician-assigned diagnosis of asthma, 833 with a diagnosis of asthma + COPD, and 2,436 with a diagnosis of COPD. The prevalence of BDR was 19.7% (asthma), 29.6% (asthma + COPD), and 24.7% (COPD) using 2005 criteria and 18.1%, 23.3%, and 18.0%, respectively, using 2021 criteria. Using 2021 criteria in patients diagnosed with asthma, BDR was associated with higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide; lower lung function; higher symptom burden; more frequent hospital admissions; and greater use of triple therapy, oral corticosteroids, or biologics. In patients diagnosed with COPD, BDR (2021) was associated with lower lung function and higher symptom burden. Conclusions: BDR prevalence in patients with chronic airway diseases receiving treatment ranges from 18% to 30%, being modestly lower with the 2021 than with the 2005 European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria, and it is associated with lower lung function and greater symptom burden. These observations question the validity of BDR as a key diagnostic tool for asthma managed in clinical practice or as a standard inclusion criterion for clinical trials of asthma and instead suggest that BDR be considered a treatable trait for chronic airway disease.

The carbon footprint of as-needed budesonide-formoterol in mild asthma: a post hoc analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The use of pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and asthma exacerbations necessitating healthcare reviews contribute substantially to the global carbon footprint of healthcare. It is possible that a reduction in carbon footprint could be achieved by switching patients with mild asthma from salbutamol pMDI reliever therapy to inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) reliever therapy, as recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). METHODS: This post hoc analysis included all 668 adult participants in the Novel START trial, who were randomised 1:1:1 to treatment with: as-needed budesonide-formoterol DPI, as-needed salbutamol pMDI, or maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI. The primary outcome was carbon footprint of asthma management, expressed as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (kgCO2e), per person year. Secondary outcomes explored the effect of baseline symptom control and adherence (maintenance budesonide DPI arm only) on carbon footprint. RESULTS: As-needed budesonide-formoterol DPI was associated with 95.8% and 93.6% lower carbon footprint compared with as-needed salbutamol pMDI (least squares mean 1.1 versus 26.2 kgCO2e; difference -25.0, 95% CI -29.7 to -20.4; p<0.001) and maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI (least squares mean 1.1 versus 17.3 kgCO2e; difference -16.2, 95% CI -20.9 to -11.6; p<0.001), respectively. There was no statistically significant evidence that treatment differences in carbon footprint depended on baseline symptom control or adherence in the maintenance budesonide DPI arm. CONCLUSIONS: The as-needed budesonide-formoterol DPI treatment option was associated with a markedly lower carbon footprint than as-needed salbutamol pMDI and maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI.

Prevalence and burden of difficult-to-treat and severe asthma in Australia: A national population survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most evidence about difficult-to-treat and severe asthma (DTTA) comes from clinical trials and registries. We aimed to identify people with DTTA from a large nationally representative asthma population and describe their characteristics and healthcare utilization compared with people whose asthma was not 'difficult-to-treat'. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Australians aged ≥18 years with current asthma from large web-based survey panels. Enrolment was stratified by gender, age-group and state/territory based on national population data for people with asthma. Difficult-to-treat or severe asthma was defined by poor symptom control, exacerbations and/or oral corticosteroid/biologic use despite medium/high-dose inhaled therapy. Outcomes included exacerbations, healthcare utilization, multimorbidity, quality of life and coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19)-related behaviour. Weighted data were analysed using SAS version 9.4. RESULTS: The survey was conducted in February-March 2021. The weighted sample comprised 6048 adults with current asthma (average age 47.3 ± SD 18.1 years, 59.9% female), with 1313 (21.7%) satisfying ≥1 DTTA criteria. Of these, 50.4% had very poorly controlled symptoms (Asthma Control Test ≤15), 36.2% were current smokers, and 85.4% had ≥1 additional chronic condition, most commonly anxiety/depression. More than twice as many participants with DTTA versus non-DTTA had ≥1 urgent general practitioner (GP) visit (61.4% vs. 27.5%, OR 4.8 [4.2-5.5, p < 0.0001]), or ≥1 emergency room visit (41.9% vs. 17.9%, OR 3.8 [3.3-4.4, p < 0.0001]) in the previous 12 months. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasize the burden of uncontrolled symptoms, current smoking, multimorbidity and healthcare utilization in people with DTTA in the community, who may be under-represented in registries or clinical trials.

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.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol effectively reduces exacerbations in asthma. We aimed to investigate its efficacy compared with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients with COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 2 years were randomly assigned to open-label MART (Spiromax budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 2 inhalations twice daily+1 prn) or fixed-dose therapy (Diskus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 500/50 µg 1 inhalation twice daily+salbutamol 100 µg prn) for 1 year. The primary outcome was rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, defined by treatment with oral prednisolone and/or antibiotics. RESULTS: In total, 195 patients were randomised (MART Bud/Form n=103; fixed-dose FSC n=92). No significant difference was seen between MART and FSC therapy in exacerbation rates (1.32 vs 1.32 /year, respectively, rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.39); p=0.741). No differences in lung function parameters or health status were observed. Total ICS dose was significantly lower with MART than FSC therapy (budesonide-equivalent 928 µg/day vs 1747 µg/day, respectively, p<0.05). Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events (MART Bud/Form: 73% vs fixed-dose FSC: 68%, p=0.408) and pneumonias (MART: 5% vs FSC: 1%, p=0.216). CONCLUSIONS: This first study of MART in COPD found that budesonide/formoterol MART might be similarly effective to fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose therapy in moderate to severe patients with COPD, at a lower daily ICS dosage. Further evidence is needed about long-term safety.

Can we predict who will benefit most from biologics in severe asthma? A post-hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Individualized prediction of treatment response may improve the value proposition of advanced treatment options in severe asthma. This study aimed to investigate the combined capacity of patient characteristics in predicting treatment response to mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from two multinational phase 3 trials of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma. We fitted penalized regression models to quantify reductions in the rate of severe exacerbations and the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5) score. The capacity of 15 covariates towards predicting treatment response was quantified by the Gini index (measuring disparities in treatment benefit) as well as observed treatment benefit within the quintiles of predicted treatment benefit. RESULTS: There was marked variability in the ability of patient characteristics to predict treatment response; covariates explained greater heterogeneity in predicting treatment response to asthma control than to exacerbation frequency (Gini index 0.35 v. 0.24). Key predictors for treatment benefit for severe exacerbations included exacerbation history, blood eosinophil count, baseline ACQ5 score and age, and those for symptom control included blood eosinophil count and presence of nasal polyps. Overall, the average reduction in exacerbations was 0.90/year (95%CI, 0.87‒0.92) and average reduction in ACQ5 score was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.02‒0.35). Among the top 20% of patients for predicted treatment benefit, exacerbations were reduced by 2.23/year (95% CI, 2.03‒2.43) and ACQ5 score were reduced by 0.59 (95% CI, 0.19‒0.98). Among the bottom 20% of patients for predicted treatment benefit, exacerbations were reduced by 0.25/year (95% CI, 0.16‒0.34) and ACQ5 by -0.20 (95% CI, -0.51 to 0.11). CONCLUSION: A precision medicine approach based on multiple patient characteristics can guide biologic therapy in severe asthma, especially in identifying patients who will not benefit as much from therapy. Patient characteristics had a greater capacity to predict treatment response to asthma control than to exacerbation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01691521 (registered September 24, 2012) and NCT01000506 (registered October 23, 2009).

Chronic Airways Assessment Test: psychometric properties in patients with asthma and/or COPD.

BACKGROUND: No short patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments assess overall health status across different obstructive lung diseases. Thus, the wording of the introduction to the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT) was modified to permit use in asthma and/or COPD. This tool is called the Chronic Airways Assessment Test (CAAT). METHODS: The psychometric properties of the CAAT were evaluated using baseline data from the NOVELTY study (NCT02760329) in patients with physician-assigned asthma, asthma + COPD or COPD. Analyses included exploratory/confirmatory factor analyses, differential item functioning and analysis of construct validity. Responses to the CAAT and CAT were compared in patients with asthma + COPD and those with COPD. RESULTS: CAAT items were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha: > 0.7) within each diagnostic group (n = 510). Models for structural and measurement invariance were strong. Tests of differential item functioning showed small differences between asthma and COPD in individual items, but these were not consistent in direction and had minimal overall impact on the total score. The CAAT and CAT were highly consistent when assessed in all NOVELTY patients who completed both (N = 277, Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.90). Like the CAT itself, CAAT scores correlated moderately (0.4-0.7) to strongly (> 0.7) with other PRO measures and weakly (< 0.4) with spirometry measures. CONCLUSIONS: CAAT scores appear to reflect the same health impairment across asthma and COPD, making the CAAT an appropriate PRO instrument for patients with asthma and/or COPD. Its brevity makes it suitable for use in clinical studies and routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02760329.

Contribution of obesity to breathlessness in a large nationally representative sample of Australian adults.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Breathlessness is prevalent and associated with medical consequences. Obesity is related to breathlessness. However, the magnitude of its contribution has not been clearly documented. This investigation aimed to determine the contribution of obesity to breathlessness by estimating the population attributable fraction (PAF) in a representative sample of Australian adults. METHODS: A cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of Australian residents aged ≥18 years was conducted in October 2019. Breathlessness was defined as modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale grade ≥2. BMI was calculated from self-reported height and weight. Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) were estimated using a generalized linear model with Poisson distribution, adjusted for age group and/or participant-reported diagnosed illnesses. Adjusted PAFs were estimated using aRR and obesity prevalence in Australian adults. RESULTS: Among those who completed the National Breathlessness Survey, 9769 participants (51.4% female) were included in the analysis; 28.1% of participants were obese. The prevalence of breathlessness was 9.54%. The aRR of obesity for breathlessness was 2.04, adjusted for age. Adjusting for various co-morbid conditions, the aRR was slightly attenuated to around 1.85-1.98. The PAF, adjusted only for age, was 24.6% (95% CI 20.1-29.1) and after further adjustment for co-morbid conditions, the PAF ranged from 21.1% to 23.6%. Obesity accounted for a higher proportion of breathlessness in women than in men. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that obesity accounts for around a quarter of breathlessness symptoms in Australian adults. This has important implications for health policy in light of the global trend in increasing obesity.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ⩾60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2-agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Risk factors and clinical characteristics of breathlessness in Australian adults: Data from the BOLD Australia study.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is a common symptom related to a significant health burden. However, the association of breathlessness with clinical characteristics, especially objective pulmonary test results is scarce. We aimed to identify the characteristics independently associated with breathlessness in Australian adults. METHOD: The analysis used data from BOLD Australia, a cross-sectional study that included randomly selected adults aged ≥40 years from six sites in Australia. Clinical characteristics and spirometry results were compared for breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] grade ≥2). RESULTS: Among all respondents (n = 3321), 252 participants (7.6%) reported breathlessness. The main univariate associations were obesity, chronic respiratory diseases, heart diseases and being Indigenous Australians (odds ratios [ORs] = 2.78, 5.20, 3.77 and 4.38, respectively). Participants with breathlessness had lower pre-and post-bronchodilator lung function than those without. Impaired spirometry results including FVC or FEV1 below 80% predicted, or FEV1/FVC < LLN were independently associated with breathlessness (adjusted ORs = 2.66, 2.94 and 2.34, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Breathlessness is common among Australian adults and is independently associated with obesity, chronic respiratory diseases, heart diseases, being Indigenous Australians, and impaired spirometry. Multi-disciplinary assessment and comprehensive investigation is needed in clinical practice to address the many factors associated with breathlessness in the population.

Improving lung health in low-income and middle-income countries: from challenges to solutions.

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionately high burden of the global morbidity and mortality caused by chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, and post-tuberculosis lung disease. CRDs are strongly associated with poverty, infectious diseases, and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and contribute to complex multi-morbidity, with major consequences for the lives and livelihoods of those affected. The relevance of CRDs to health and socioeconomic wellbeing is expected to increase in the decades ahead, as life expectancies rise and the competing risks of early childhood mortality and infectious diseases plateau. As such, the World Health Organization has identified the prevention and control of NCDs as an urgent development issue and essential to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. In this Review, we focus on CRDs in LMICs. We discuss the early life origins of CRDs; challenges in their prevention, diagnosis, and management in LMICs; and pathways to solutions to achieve true universal health coverage.

Controlled Trial of Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed for Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: In double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, budesonide-formoterol used on an as-needed basis resulted in a lower risk of severe exacerbation of asthma than as-needed use of a short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA); the risk was similar to that of budesonide maintenance therapy plus as-needed SABA. The availability of data from clinical trials designed to better reflect clinical practice would be beneficial. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial involving adults with mild asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: albuterol (100 µg, two inhalations from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler as needed for asthma symptoms) (albuterol group); budesonide (200 µg, one inhalation through a Turbuhaler twice daily) plus as-needed albuterol (budesonide maintenance group); or budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol, one inhalation through a Turbuhaler as needed) (budesonide-formoterol group). Electronic monitoring of inhalers was used to measure medication use. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of asthma exacerbations. RESULTS: The analysis included 668 of 675 patients who underwent randomization. The annualized exacerbation rate in the budesonide-formoterol group was lower than that in the albuterol group (absolute rate, 0.195 vs. 0.400; relative rate, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.72; P<0.001) and did not differ significantly from the rate in the budesonide maintenance group (absolute rate, 0.195 in the budesonide-formoterol group vs. 0.175 in the budesonide maintenance group; relative rate, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.79; P = 0.65). The number of severe exacerbations was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group than in both the albuterol group (9 vs. 23; relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.86) and the budesonide maintenance group (9 vs. 21; relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.96). The mean (±SD) dose of inhaled budesonide was 107±109 µg per day in the budesonide-formoterol group and 222±113 µg per day in the budesonide maintenance group. The incidence and type of adverse events reported were consistent with those in previous trials and with reports in clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: In an open-label trial involving adults with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was superior to albuterol used as needed for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; Novel START Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12615000999538.).

Asthma management in low and middle income countries: case for change.

Asthma is the most common noncommunicable disease in children, and among the most common in adults. The great majority of people with asthma live in low and middle income countries (LMICs), which have disproportionately high asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Essential inhaled medications, particularly those containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), are often unavailable or unaffordable, and this explains much of the global burden of preventable asthma morbidity and mortality. Guidelines developed for LMICs are generally based on the outdated assumption that patients with asthma symptoms <1-3 times per week do not need (or benefit from) ICS. Even when ICS are prescribed, many patients manage their asthma with oral or inhaled short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA) alone, owing to issues of availability and affordability. A single ICS-formoterol inhaler-based approach to asthma management for all severities of asthma, from mild to severe, starting at diagnosis, might overcome SABA overuse/over-reliance and reduce the burden of symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, ICS-formoterol inhalers are currently very poorly available or unaffordable in LMICs. There is a pressing need for pragmatic clinical trial evidence of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this and other strategies to improve asthma care in these countries. The global health inequality in asthma care that deprives so many children, adolescents and adults of healthy lives and puts them at increased risk of death, despite the availability of highly effective therapeutic approaches, is unacceptable. A World Health Assembly Resolution on universal access to affordable and effective asthma care is needed to focus attention and investment on addressing this need.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2 -agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2 -agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

How to step down asthma preventer treatment in patients with well-controlled asthma - more is not always better.

Most of the benefit of asthma preventer inhalers is seen with low doses. However, many Australian patients are prescribed doses of inhaled corticosteroids that are higher than necessary to control their asthma. Prescribing unnecessarily high preventer doses increases the patient's risk of adverse effects. They may also increase the patient's out-of-pocket costs. Asthma guidelines recommend considering a step-down in preventer treatment after asthma has been well controlled for two to three months in adults and for six months in children. The step-down process should be individualised for each patient. Preventive therapy should not be stopped completely.

As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol versus Maintenance Budesonide in Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mild asthma often rely on inhaled short-acting ß2-agonists for symptom relief and have poor adherence to maintenance therapy. Another approach might be for patients to receive a fast-acting reliever plus an inhaled glucocorticoid component on an as-needed basis to address symptoms and exacerbation risk. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, double-blind, multicenter trial involving patients 12 years of age or older who had mild asthma and were eligible for treatment with regular inhaled glucocorticoids. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol) used as needed or budesonide maintenance therapy with twice-daily budesonide (200 µg) plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed. The primary analysis compared budesonide-formoterol used as needed with budesonide maintenance therapy with regard to the annualized rate of severe exacerbations, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 1.2. Symptoms were assessed according to scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) on a scale from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (maximum impairment). RESULTS: A total of 4215 patients underwent randomization, and 4176 (2089 in the budesonide-formoterol group and 2087 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis set. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to budesonide maintenance therapy for severe exacerbations; the annualized rate of severe exacerbations was 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.13) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14), respectively (rate ratio, 0.97; upper one-sided 95% confidence limit, 1.16). The median daily metered dose of inhaled glucocorticoid was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group (66 µg) than in the budesonide maintenance group (267 µg). The time to the first exacerbation was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). The change in ACQ-5 score showed a difference of 0.11 units (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.15) in favor of budesonide maintenance therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to twice-daily budesonide with respect to the rate of severe asthma exacerbations during 52 weeks of treatment but was inferior in controlling symptoms. Patients in the budesonide-formoterol group had approximately one quarter of the inhaled glucocorticoid exposure of those in the budesonide maintenance group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224157 .).

Inhaled Combined Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed in Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild asthma, as-needed use of an inhaled glucocorticoid plus a fast-acting ß2-agonist may be an alternative to conventional treatment strategies. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, double-blind trial involving patients 12 years of age or older with mild asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: twice-daily placebo plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed (terbutaline group), twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol) used as needed (budesonide-formoterol group), or twice-daily budesonide (200 µg) plus terbutaline used as needed (budesonide maintenance group). The primary objective was to investigate the superiority of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to as-needed terbutaline with regard to electronically recorded weeks with well-controlled asthma. RESULTS: A total of 3849 patients underwent randomization, and 3836 (1277 in the terbutaline group, 1277 in the budesonide-formoterol group, and 1282 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis and safety data sets. With respect to the mean percentage of weeks with well-controlled asthma per patient, budesonide-formoterol was superior to terbutaline (34.4% vs. 31.1% of weeks; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.30; P=0.046) but inferior to budesonide maintenance therapy (34.4% and 44.4%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.73). The annual rate of severe exacerbations was 0.20 with terbutaline, 0.07 with budesonide-formoterol, and 0.09 with budesonide maintenance therapy; the rate ratio was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.49) for budesonide-formoterol versus terbutaline and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.16) for budesonide-formoterol versus budesonide maintenance therapy. The rate of adherence in the budesonide maintenance group was 78.9%. The median metered daily dose of inhaled glucocorticoid in the budesonide-formoterol group (57 µg) was 17% of the dose in the budesonide maintenance group (340 µg). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol provided superior asthma-symptom control to as-needed terbutaline, assessed according to electronically recorded weeks with well-controlled asthma, but was inferior to budesonide maintenance therapy. Exacerbation rates with the two budesonide-containing regimens were similar and were lower than the rate with terbutaline. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed resulted in substantially lower glucocorticoid exposure than budesonide maintenance therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02149199 .).

The management of mild asthma.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been recommended as a maintenance treatment, either alone or together with long-acting inhaled ß2-agonists, for all asthma patients. Short-acting ß2-agonists (SABAs) are rapid-onset bronchodilators, which provide symptom relief, but have no anti-inflammatory properties, yet are the most widely used as-needed reliever treatment for asthma and often the only treatment prescribed. Asthma patients can find adhering to daily preventative medication with ICS difficult and will often revert to using as-needed SABA as their only treatment, increasing their risk of exacerbations. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of reliever medications that contain ICS compared with SABA as reliever, or with maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, in mild asthma patients.Nine studies were identified that have evaluated the use of ICS as a component of an as-needed reliever in patients with mild asthma. Four of the most recent studies compared the combination of ICS/formoterol to SABA as reliever.ICS-containing reliever medication was superior to SABA as reliever alone, and was equivalent to maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, particularly in reducing risks of severe asthma exacerbations, in studies which compared these reliever options.SABAs should not be used as a reliever without ICS. The concern about patients with mild asthma not being adherent to maintenance ICS supports a recommendation that ICS/formoterol should be considered as a treatment option instead of maintenance ICS, to avoid the risk of patients reverting to SABA alone.

Heterogeneity within and between physician-diagnosed asthma and/or COPD: NOVELTY cohort.

BACKGROUND: Studies of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) typically focus on these diagnoses separately, limiting understanding of disease mechanisms and treatment options. NOVELTY is a global, 3-year, prospective observational study of patients with asthma and/or COPD from real-world clinical practice. We investigated heterogeneity and overlap by diagnosis and severity in this cohort. METHODS: Patients with physician-assigned asthma, COPD or both (asthma+COPD) were enrolled, and stratified by diagnosis and severity. Baseline characteristics were reported descriptively by physician-assigned diagnosis and/or severity. Factors associated with physician-assessed severity were evaluated using ordinal logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 11 243 patients, 5940 (52.8%) had physician-assigned asthma, 1396 (12.4%) had asthma+COPD and 3907 (34.8%) had COPD; almost half were from primary care. Symptoms, health-related quality of life and spirometry showed substantial heterogeneity and overlap between asthma, asthma+COPD and COPD, with 23%, 62% and 64% of patients, respectively, having a ratio of post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s to forced vital capacity below the lower limit of normal. Symptoms and exacerbations increased with greater physician-assessed severity and were higher in asthma+COPD. However, 24.3% with mild asthma and 20.4% with mild COPD had experienced ≥1 exacerbation in the past 12 months. Medication records suggested both under-treatment and over-treatment relative to severity. Blood eosinophil counts varied little across diagnosis and severity groups, but blood neutrophil counts increased with severity across all diagnoses. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates marked heterogeneity within, and overlap between, physician-assigned diagnosis and severity groups in patients with asthma and/or COPD. Current diagnostic and severity classifications in clinical practice poorly differentiate between clinical phenotypes that may have specific risks and treatment implications.

Barriers to belonging: the need for relatedness amongst people living with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma, that is, asthma that is relatively refractory to conventional therapy, affects 3-10% of the asthma population. It is associated with a significant burden affecting social and working life. Supporting the need for relatedness facilitates health behavior change and improves overall well-being. However, this has not been closely examined from the patients' perspective. This study examines relatedness in patients' narratives about their experiences of living with and managing severe asthma. METHODS: Rigorous and systematic qualitative research methods were used to conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews. Participants were included if they were ≥18 years old and diagnosed with severe asthma. Interviews were video and/or audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed inductively and deductively informed by the self-determination theory construct of relatedness. Thirty-eight face-to-face interviews, lasting 1.5 - 4 hours, were conducted around Australia. RESULTS: Our findings show that living with a debilitating and unpredictable illness challenged participants' sense of relatedness. Two themes emerged: 1) the desire to be understood: feeling isolated and 2) the desire to be accepted: 'I'm supposed to be like everybody else'. For people living with severe asthma, feeling cared for, understood, connected to others and having a sense of belonging was valued. Their overall psychological well-being was dependent upon their sense of connection to others. CONCLUSION: Future research should consider our findings of the challenges faced to preserve their sense of relatedness, when developing and implementing patient-driven self-management interventions for those living with severe asthma.