Is the assessment of asthma treatment efficacy sufficiently comprehensive?

The goal of asthma guideline therapy is to achieve disease control, by minimizing impairment and decreasing the risk of exacerbations and adverse effects of the disease and its treatment. The primary objective of most clinical trials of biologics for severe asthma is a reduction in exacerbation rate. Recently, studies with patients at the lower guideline steps have also selected exacerbation reduction as a primary objective. These trials in patients with milder disease frequently demonstrate statistically significantly fewer exacerbations, but their power calculations reflect larger sample size and smaller effect size. Exacerbations have a precise consensus definition, although a minimal clinically important difference has not been established. Reduction of exacerbations in severe asthma is commonly 10-fold greater than in mild disease. Further, reduction in exacerbations is not always associated with reduced impairment. If superior control is the objective, both domains should demonstrate consistent and parallel improvement. The disconnect may reflect the need for alternative tools for measurement of impairment or, possibly, different therapeutic mechanisms of action. Determining response to biologics or discussion of disease remission requires assessing symptoms that may occur daily rather than focusing on exacerbations that occur once or twice a year for patients at the highest steps of care according to the guidelines.

Electronic medication monitoring versus self-reported use of inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting beta2-agonists in uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Current standard of care, patient self-report and clinician estimation, overestimates true inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) adherence. We compare self-reported inhaled ICS and short-acting beta 2-agonists (SABA) use with objective data from electronic medication monitors (EMMs). METHODS: Adults with uncontrolled asthma and prescribed ICS and SABA were enrolled. At visit one, participants' ICS and SABA inhalers were fitted with EMMs to track real-time medication usage over 14 days. Participants were asked to complete paper diaries to self-report medication usage over the same period. Participant self-report of ICS adherence and SABA use versus objective ICS adherence and SABA use was compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: One hundred participants (80% female, mean age 48.5 years, 60% completed college, 80% privately insured) had complete data. Participant self-report (median (IQR): 0.8 (0.0, 2.0)) was greater than objectively measured (median (IQR): 0.43 (0.1, 2.1)) SABA use, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.64). Participant self-report (median (IQR): 97 (67, 100)) was significantly greater than objectively measured (median (IQR): 75 (54, 93)) ICS adherence (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Significant discrepancies between self-report and objective ICS usage were observed. EMM can provide clinicians with accurate data on ICS medication taking behavior, thus reducing medication regimen complexity, side effects, and costs.

A randomised controlled trial of the effect of a connected inhaler system on medication adherence in uncontrolled asthmatic patients.

Suboptimal adherence to maintenance therapy contributes to poor asthma control and exacerbations. This study evaluated the effect of different elements of a connected inhaler system (CIS), comprising clip-on inhaler sensors, a patient-facing app and a healthcare professional (HCP) dashboard, on adherence to asthma maintenance therapy.This was an open-label, parallel-group, 6-month, randomised controlled trial in adults with uncontrolled asthma (asthma control test (ACT) score less than 20) on fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß-agonist maintenance therapy (n=437). All subjects received fluticasone furoate/vilanterol ELLIPTA dry-powder inhalers for maintenance and salbutamol/albuterol metered-dose inhalers for rescue, with a sensor attached to each inhaler. Participants were randomised to one of five CIS study arms (allocation ratio 1:1:1:1:1) reflecting the recipient of the data feedback from the sensors, as follows: 1) maintenance use to participants and HCPs (n=87); 2) maintenance use to participants (n=88); 3) maintenance and rescue use to participants and HCPs (n=88); 4) maintenance and rescue use to participants (n=88); and 5) no feedback (control) (n=86).For the primary endpoint, observed mean±sd adherence to maintenance therapy over months 4-6 was 82.2±16.58% (n=83) in the "maintenance to participants and HCPs" arm and 70.8±27.30% (n=85) in the control arm. The adjusted least squares mean±se was 80.9±3.19% and 69.0±3.19%, respectively (study arm difference: 12.0%, 95% CI 5.2-18.8%; p<0.001). Adherence was also significantly greater in the other CIS arms versus the control arm. The mean percentage of rescue medication free days (months 4-6) was significantly greater in participants receiving data on their rescue use compared with controls. ACT scores improved in all study arms with no significant differences between groups.A CIS can improve adherence to maintenance medication and reduce rescue medication use in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Assessing asthma control: comparison of electronic-recorded short-acting beta-agonist rescue use and self-reported use utilizing the asthma control test.

Background: Question 4 (Q4) of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) asks patients to report their SABA use over the prior 4 weeks, a criterion for evaluating the impairment domain of asthma control. Biases in recall may lead to a misclassification of asthma control and has implications for asthma control determination and management strategies.Objective: To correlate objective electronic-recorded short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) use with self-reported use via Q4 of the ACT.Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with a self-reported diagnosis of asthma were enrolled in a digital health electronic medication monitoring (EMM) platform, which recorded the date and time of SABA actuations and prompted the completion of the ACT. The correlations between ACT Q4 responses and EMM-recorded SABA use were evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.Results: 1,062 patients (mean age: 35.4 years, mean ACT: 16.3) were included in analyses. Higher Q4 scores, indicating lower SABA use, were moderately and negatively correlated with EMM-recorded SABA use (ρ = -0.59 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.54]). Thirty-five percent of patients underreported SABA use when comparing Q4 to EMM-recorded SABA use.Conclusions: While ACT Q4 and EMM-recorded use were moderately correlated, underreported SABA use on the ACT highlights the need for objective measures of SABA use in asthma control assessments. The use of EMM-recorded SABA data has the potential for clinicians to more accurately determine asthma control, guide changes to controller therapy, and estimate imminent exacerbation risk.

Building Bridges for Asthma Care: Reducing school absence for inner-city children with health disparities.

BACKGROUND: Children with asthma are at increased risk for experiencing health and educational disparities because of increased school absence. School nurses are well positioned to support asthma management and improve school attendance. OBJECTIVE: We sought to implement and assess the effect of the Building Bridges for Asthma Care Program on improving school attendance and measures of asthma control. METHODS: Children with asthma (age, 5-14 years) in the Denver Public School System (n = 240) and the Hartford Public School System (n = 223) were enrolled in the Building Bridges Program during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years and followed until the end of the second school year. The primary outcome was school absence, with secondary outcomes, including asthma control, measured based on Childhood Asthma Control Test or the Asthma Control Test scores and rescue inhaler use. RESULTS: Participants experienced a 22% absolute decrease in school absenteeism, the number of children with an Asthma Control Test/Childhood Asthma Control Test score of less than the control threshold of 20 decreased from 42.7% to 28.8%, and bronchodilator use greater than 2 times per week decreased from 35.8% to 22.9% (all changes were significant, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Children enrolled in the Building Bridges for Asthma Care Program experienced reduced school absence and improved asthma control.

Building Bridges for Asthma Care Program: A School-Centered Program Connecting Schools, Families, and Community Health-Care Providers.

Asthma imposes tremendous burden on children, families, and society. Successful management requires coordinated care among children, families, health providers, and schools. Building Bridges for Asthma Care Program, a school-centered program to coordinate care for successful asthma management, was developed, implemented, and evaluated. The program consists of five steps: (1) identify students with asthma; (2) assess asthma risk/control; (3) engage the family and student at risk; (4) provide case management and care coordination, including engagement of health-care providers; and (5) prepare for next school year. Implementation occurred in 28 schools from two large urban school districts in Colorado and Connecticut. Significant improvements were noted in the proportions of students with completed School Asthma Care Plans, a quick-relief inhaler at school, Home Asthma Action/Treatment Plans and inhaler technique (p < .01 for all variables). Building Bridges for Asthma Care was successfully implemented extending asthma care to at-risk children with asthma through engagement of schools, health providers, and families.

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone.

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group. (AUSTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01475721.).

Safety of Adding Salmeterol to Fluticasone Propionate in Children with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) have been shown to increase the risk of asthma-related death among adults and the risk of asthma-related hospitalization among children. It is unknown whether the concomitant use of inhaled glucocorticoids with LABAs mitigates those risks. This trial prospectively evaluated the safety of the LABA salmeterol, added to fluticasone propionate, in a fixed-dose combination in children. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, children 4 to 11 years of age who required daily asthma medications and had a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year to receive fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization), as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The statistical design specified that noninferiority would be shown if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for the primary safety end point was less than 2.675. The main efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation that led to treatment with systemic glucocorticoids, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Among the 6208 patients, 27 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 21 in the fluticasone-alone group had a serious asthma-related event (all were hospitalizations); the hazard ratio with fluticasone-salmeterol versus fluticasone alone was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 2.27), which showed the noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol (P=0.006). A total of 265 patients (8.5%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 309 (10.0%) in the fluticasone-alone group had a severe asthma exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children with asthma, salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone was associated with the risk of a serious asthma-related event that was similar to the risk with fluticasone alone. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; VESTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01462344 .).

Effect of a mobile health, sensor-driven asthma management platform on asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Asthma inflicts a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Self-management approaches to monitoring and treatment can be burdensome for patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a digital health management program on asthma outcomes. METHODS: Residents of Louisville, Kentucky, with asthma were enrolled in a single-arm pilot study. Participants received electronic inhaler sensors that tracked the time, frequency, and location of short-acting ß-agonist (SABA) use. After a 30-day baseline period during which reference medication use was recorded by the sensors, participants received access to a digital health intervention designed to enhance self-management. Changes in outcomes, including mean daily SABA use, symptom-free days, and asthma control status, were compared among the initial 30-day baseline period and all subsequent months of the intervention using mixed-model logistic regressions and χ2 tests. RESULTS: The mean number of SABA events per participant per day was 0.44 during the control period and 0.27 after the first month of the intervention, a 39% reduction. The percentage of symptom-free days was 77% during the baseline period and 86% after the first month, a 12% improvement. Improvement was observed throughout the study; each intervention month demonstrated significantly lower SABA use and higher symptom-free days than the baseline month (P < .001). Sixty-nine percent had well-controlled asthma during the baseline period, 67% during the first month of the intervention. Each intervention month demonstrated significantly higher percentages than the baseline month (P < .001), except for month 1 (P = .80). CONCLUSION: A digital health asthma management intervention demonstrated significant reductions in SABA use, increased number of symptom-free days, and improvements in asthma control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02162576.

Correction to: Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

CORRECTION: After publication of this work [1] it was noticed that the author name Rachael L. DiSantostefano was not spelt correctly as there was a space in her surname between 'Di' and 'Santostefano'. The publisher apologises for this error.

Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the primary treatment for persistent asthma. Currently available ICS have differing particle size due to both formulation and propellant, and it has been postulated that this may impact patient outcomes. This structured literature review and meta-analysis compared the effect of small and standard particle size ICS on lung function, symptoms, rescue use (when available) and safety in patients with asthma as assessed in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE was performed to identify RCTs (1998-2014) evaluating standard size (fluticasone propionate-containing medications) versus small particle size ICS medication in adults and children with asthma. Efficacy outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptom scores, % predicted forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF25-75%), and rescue medication use. Safety outcomes were also evaluated when available. RESULTS: Twenty-three independent trials that met the eligibility criteria were identified. Benefit-risk plots did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful differences across the five efficacy endpoints considered and no appreciable differences were noted for most safety endpoints. Meta-analysis results, using a random-effects model, demonstrated no significant difference between standard and small size particle ICS medications in terms of effects on mean change from baseline FEV1 (L) (-0.011, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.037, 0.014 [N = 3524]), morning PEF (L/min) (medium/low doses: -3.874, 95% CI: -10.915, 3.166 [N = 1911]; high/high-medium doses: 5.551, 95% CI: -1.948, 13.049 [N = 749]) and FEF25-75% predicted (-2.418, 95% CI: -6.400; 1.564 [N = 115]). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available literature, no clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed comparing small and standard particle size ICS medications for the treatment of asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK Clinical Study Register No: 202012 .

An evaluation of asthma medication utilization for risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) in the United States: 2005-2011.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess drug utilization patterns of fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) combination (FSC) and SAL over the 7-year period of 2005-2011 in patients with asthma as part of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective observational study utilizing national pharmacy data and employer-based claims data to characterize drug utilization patterns. RESULTS: For patients with asthma, the total number of FSC and SAL dispensings and users of FSC and SAL has declined between 2005 and 2011. During this period, FSC and SAL dispensing for asthma decreased 24% and 76%, respectively, with a more pronounced decline between 2010 and 2011 relative to other years. The total number of patients with asthma who were dispensed FSC has decreased by 10% among adults and by 40% in children and adolescents. While SAL-containing medications decreased, dispensing of FP monotherapy increased 39% during the same 7-year period. The number of patients dispensed FP for asthma has increased 47% in children 4-11 years of age, 72% in adolescents 12-17 years of age, and 6% in adults. SAL use without a controller was infrequent and decreasing, reported by 1.7% and 0.5% of patients with asthma in 2005 and 2011, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with asthma, use of FSC and SAL decreased between 2005 and 2011, while the use of FP increased. Use of SAL monotherapy was infrequent and declined during the study period. The data suggest that the substantial communication activities have encouraged appropriate prescribing of long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonist (LABA).

Medication Adherence and Asthma Control with Once-Daily Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium/Mometasone Furoate Breezhaler Digital Companion: 90-Day Analysis from Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal adherence to inhaled asthma therapy is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Digital companion paired inhaler devices record medication use and provide reminders, thereby improving treatment adherence and asthma outcomes. This analysis assessed the impact of indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone furoate (IND/GLY/MF) Breezhaler® digital companion on medication adherence and symptom control in adults with asthma from Germany. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included adults (≥ 18 years) with asthma and prescribed Breezhaler digital companion. Assessments included: mean medication adherence (number of puffs taken/prescribed × 100) and change in Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores [well controlled (≥ 20), not well controlled (15-20) and poorly controlled (≤ 15)] at 1 month after the first ACT (second ACT). The percent of patients with ≥ 80% medication adherence (days 16-30 and 76-90) and the change in ACT (baseline and ≥ 30 days) were analysed. RESULTS: Of the 163 patients with 90 days data, ≥ 80% medication adherence was achieved in 82.8% and 72.4% of patients at months 1 and 3, respectively. Change in asthma control was examined in ~ 60% (n = 97) of patients who completed ≥ 2 ACTs through the application. At baseline, 33.0% of patients were well controlled and 53.6% were well controlled at second ACT. Furthermore, 43.3% patients reported very poor control at baseline which decreased to 22.7% at second ACT. CONCLUSION: The use of IND/GLY/MF (Breezhaler) with a digital companion (sensor + application) may be associated with improved symptom control and high level of controller medication adherence in patients with asthma.

Is Once Versus Twice Daily Dosing Better for Adherence in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?

BACKGROUND: Patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed once- or twice-daily dosing of controller inhalers. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in controller adherence by dosing schedule and age. METHODS: Electronic medication monitors (EMMs) captured the date and time of inhaler actuations over 90 days in patients using the Propeller Health platform. Prescribed inhaler schedule was self-reported. Once- versus twice-daily schedule comparisons were assessed retrospectively using regressions adjusting for age. RESULTS: A total of 6294 patients with asthma and 1791 patients with COPD were included. On average, once-daily users had significantly higher median (interquartile range [IQR]) daily adherence than twice-daily users (asthma: 63.3 [IQR: 31.1, 86.7]% vs 50.3 [IQR: 21.1, 78.3]%, P < .001; COPD: 83.3 [IQR: 57.2, 95.6]% vs 64.7 [IQR: 32.8, 88.9]%, P < .001). This pattern persisted in all age groups, with the exception of 4- to 17-year-olds in asthma. The lowest adherence was in the young adult population (18- to 29-year-olds). The percentage of patients who achieved ≥80% adherence was significantly higher among once- versus twice-daily users in asthma (34.3% vs 23.6%, P < .001) and COPD (54.8% vs 38.6%, P < .001). The adjusted odds of once- versus twice-daily users achieving ≥80% adherence was 1.36 (95% confidence interval: 1.19-1.56, P < .001) in asthma and 1.73 (95% confidence interval: 1.38-2.17, P < .001) in COPD. Most once-daily patients with COPD took their medication in the morning versus at night; there was no difference in morning versus afternoon/evening administration in all other asthma and COPD groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with asthma and COPD who were prescribed once-daily versus twice-daily medications were more likely to adhere to their inhalers. Patients with COPD had higher adherence than those with asthma, possibly reflecting, in part, the older cohort age. The effect of greater adherence on exacerbations is a topic for future analysis.

Asthma in the elderly: Current understanding and future research needs--a report of a National Institute on Aging (NIA) workshop.

Asthma in the elderly is underdiagnosed and undertreated, and there is a paucity of knowledge on the subject. The National Institute on Aging convened this workshop to identify what is known and what gaps in knowledge remain and suggest research directions needed to improve the understanding and care of asthma in the elderly. Asthma presenting at an advanced age often has similar clinical and physiologic consequences as seen with younger patients, but comorbid illnesses and the psychosocial effects of aging might affect the diagnosis, clinical presentation, and care of asthma in this population. At least 2 phenotypes exist among elderly patients with asthma; those with longstanding asthma have more severe airflow limitation and less complete reversibility than those with late-onset asthma. Many challenges exist in the recognition and treatment of asthma in the elderly. Furthermore, the pathophysiologic mechanisms of asthma in the elderly are likely to be different from those seen in young asthmatic patients, and these differences might influence the clinical course and outcomes of asthma in this population.

Long-term treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol via Diskus improves asthma control versus fluticasone propionate alone.

This 52-week study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 250/50 micrograms versus fluticasone propionate (FP) 250 micrograms in subjects with persistent asthma symptomatic on open-label FP 100 micrograms. The primary objective of this study was to show that FSC 250/50 micrograms was superior to FP 250 micrograms at increasing pulmonary function as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second over a 52-week treatment period. A secondary objective was to compare the rate of asthma attacks defined as (1) a sustained 2-day decrease in morning peak expiratory flow or increase in albuterol use for 2 consecutive days, (2) an asthma exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, or (3) an unscheduled clinic or hospital visit for acute asthma symptoms. Three hundred six subjects received FSC 250/50 micrograms and 315 subjects received FP 250 micrograms. Both treatments were administered twice daily. Treatment with FSC 250/50 micrograms resulted in a significant improvement in lung function compared with FP 250 micrograms (p < 0.001). Additionally, treatment with FSC 250/50 micrograms resulted in a reduction in the rate of exacerbations of asthma (i.e., requiring systemic corticosteroids or unscheduled urgent care intervention) compared with FP 250 micrograms (0.170 versus 0.273, respectively; p = 0.017). There was no differentiation between treatments for less severe attacks of asthma. FSC 250/50 micrograms showed consistently greater improvement in lung function, symptom control, and decreased albuterol use. In addition, FSC 250/50 micrograms-treated subjects experienced fewer severe asthma exacerbations than subjects treated with FP 250 micrograms.

Defining Optimal Medication Adherence for Persistent Asthma and COPD.

Adherence to prescribed medications for chronic respiratory disease is considered a keystone for successful management. There is little consensus, though, on how to measure adherence, what is optimal adherence, or the goals of appropriate medication utilization. These criteria may differ when studying medication utilization at the patient or population level. The role of consistent medication use in chronic respiratory disease is associated with better outcomes. Shared decision-making is one strategy to achieve appropriate levels of adherence that requires negotiation, compromise by both patient and provider. It also recognizes that both success and failure to achieve goals of adherence are shared. As such, we discuss the current understanding of adherence measures in respiratory disease and identify the need for more nuanced approaches to evaluate adherence to reach acceptable patient outcomes.