Asthma control in the United States: relationships between short-acting ß2-agonist and systemic corticosteroid use.

BACKGROUND: Asthma control assessment is based on impairment (current symptoms) and risk (exacerbation history). OBJECTIVE: To understand the extent of uncontrolled asthma, we assessed relationships between prescription fills for systemic corticosteroids (SCS) and short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA) as risk and impairment markers, respectively. METHODS: Annual SCS and SABA fills among US patients with asthma were evaluated by a retrospective analysis of IQVIA Longitudinal Access and Adjudication Data. Patient severity was assigned based on GINA step-therapy level. Exacerbations were evaluated by SCS fills within 12 months of a first asthma prescription fill. Uncontrolled asthma was defined as ≥2 SCS and/or ≥3 SABA fills annually. Individual patient relationships between SCS and SABA fills were assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: 4,506,527 patients were included: 15% had ≥2 SCS fills, 29% had ≥3 SABA fills, 37% fulfilled either or both criteria. If only SCS were assessed, 22% treated as mild-to-moderate and 27% as severe asthma would have been misclassified as controlled. If only SABA use was evaluated, 8% treated as mild-to-moderate and 11% as severe asthma would have been misclassified. Overall, 81% of uncontrolled asthma occurred in patients treated for mild-to-moderate disease. Among patients with ≥2 SCS fills, mean SABA fills were 2.9; the correlation between SCS and SABA fills per patient was significant but weak (r=0.18; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: High symptom burden and SCS exposures are not limited to severe asthma but are also characteristic in patients treated for mild-to-moderate disease. Both impairment and risk assessments are required to understand the full extent of uncontrolled asthma across disease severities.

Validation of the Onset of Effect Questionnaire in Participants With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Background: Patient perception of medication onset of effect is important for adherence. Although the Onset of Effect Questionnaire (OEQ) has been validated in patients with asthma, it has not been evaluated in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated the COPD-OEQ in patients with COPD. Methods: Two analyses (qualitative and quantitative) were conducted to assess the content validity and psychometric properties of the COPD-OEQ in participants with COPD. In the qualitative analysis, interviews assessed content validity by concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive interviewing (CI). CE included questions to understand patient experience related to onset of medication effect. CI included completion of the COPD-OEQ and assessment of the COPD-OEQ items, response options, and instructions. During the 2-week quantitative analysis, 2 versions of the COPD-OEQ (Weekly and Daily) were administered to assess test-retest reliability, construct validity, and known-groups validity. Results: The qualitative analysis demonstrated that 3 of the 5 COPD-OEQ items were relevant and understood as intended. Qualitative findings demonstrated inconsistent evidence that the COPD-OEQ Weekly and Daily were reliable and valid measures in participants with COPD. Test-retest reliability was observed for the COPD-OEQ Weekly and Daily; however, construct validitywas weak and demonstrated inconsistent correlations among COPD-OEQ items. Overall, known-groups validity was not demonstrated. Conclusion: The weak evidence from the quantitative analysis of the COPD-OEQ Weekly and Daily tools does not support use of the OEQ in general COPD. The study supports the content validity for the assessment of perceived onset of effect in patients with COPD.

Impact of Clinical Characteristics and Biomarkers on Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire Exacerbation Prediction Ability.

BACKGROUND: Complex models combining impairment-based control assessments with clinical characteristics and biomarkers have been developed to predict asthma exacerbations. The composite Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) with adjustments for demographics (age, sex, race, and body mass index) predicts 12-month exacerbation occurrence similarly to these more complex models. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether AIRQ exacerbation prediction is enhanced when models are adjusted for a wider range of clinical characteristics and biomarkers. METHODS: Patients aged 12 years and older completed monthly online surveys regarding exacerbation-related oral corticosteroid use, emergency department or urgent care visits, and hospitalizations. Univariate logistic regressions to predict exacerbations were performed with sociodemographics, comorbidities, exacerbation history, lung function, blood eosinophils, IgE, and FeNO. Significant (P ≤ .05) variables were included in multivariable logistic regressions with and without AIRQ control categories to predict 12-month exacerbations (log odds ratio [95% Wald confidence interval]). Model performances were compared. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 1,070 patients (70% female; mean [SD] age, 43.9 [19.4] years; 22% non-White; body mass index [SD], 30.6 [8.7]) completed one or more survey (mean [SD], 10.5 [2.8] surveys). In the multivariable analysis, AIRQ control category adjusted for significant clinical characteristics and biomarkers was predictive of one or more exacerbations: odds ratio (95% CI) not well-controlled versus well-controlled: 1.93 (1.41-2.62), very poorly controlled versus well-controlled: 3.81 (2.65-5.47). Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) for this more complex model of exacerbation prediction (AUC = 0.72) did not differ from AIRQ (AUC = 0.70). Models with AIRQ performed better than those without AIRQ (AUC = 0.67; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Costly and time-consuming complex modeling with clinical characteristics and biomarkers does not enhance the strong exacerbation prediction ability of AIRQ.

Assessing meaningful change in the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) is a 10-item, yes/no, equally weighted control tool. Lower scores indicate better control. Moreover, 7 impairment items reflect previous 2-week symptoms, and 3 risk items assess previous 12-month exacerbations. The Follow-up AIRQ for use between annual assessments has a 3-month recall period for exacerbation items. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the responsiveness of the AIRQ over time and identify a minimal important difference (MID). METHODS: The AIRQ longitudinal study data were analyzed from patients with asthma aged 12 years and older. Anchor-based methods assessed differences in AIRQ scores relative to Patient Global Impression of Change, the accepted MIDs for St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test, and exacerbation occurrence over 12 months. Baseline and 12-month data reflected 12-month recall AIRQ scores; Follow-up AIRQ scores were used for 3-, 6-, and 9-month analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1070 patients were included. The Patient Global Impression of Change rating of "much improved" was associated with AIRQ mean score changes from baseline to months 3, 6, 9, and 12 of -2.0, -1.9, -1.9, and -1.8, respectively. The mean AIRQ score change among patients who met the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire MID (≥4-point decrease) was -1.8 at 6 and 12 months. The AIRQ mean scores decreased from baseline by -2.2 to -2.5 points at months 3, 6, 9, and 12 for patients who met the Asthma Control Test MID (≥ 3-point increase). A 2-point higher baseline AIRQ score was associated with a 1.7 odds ratio of 12-month exacerbation occurrence (95% CI, 1.53-1.89). CONCLUSION: A change score of 2 is recommended as the AIRQ MID.

Patterns of rescue and maintenance therapy claims surrounding a clinical encounter for an asthma exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: A "window of opportunity" has been proposed where anti-inflammatory therapy administration in response to symptoms could prevent exacerbation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rescue and maintenance therapy claims surrounding a severe asthma exacerbation serious enough to require a face-to-face clinical encounter. METHODS: Merative MarketScan research databases (US administrative claims 2011 to 2017) were analyzed for patients aged ≥4 years, with an asthma diagnosis code, who filled short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) and Global Initiative for Asthma Steps 3 to 5 maintenance therapies. Patients were indexed on a random SABA claim and had 12 months' continuous health plan eligibility pre- and post-index. Serious exacerbations were severe exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids prescribed from an outpatient clinic, urgent care or emergency department, or hospitalization for asthma. SABA and maintenance claims 30 days pre- and post-event were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 319,342 patients (30% children 4 to 11 years; 70% adults or adolescents ≥12 years), 27.2% of children and 16.8% of adolescents or adults experienced ≥ 1 serious exacerbation (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.85 [95% confidence interval, 1.81-1.88]). In the 30 days pre-event, 42.6% filled ≥1 SABA (children: 44.3%; adolescents or adults: 41.5%; OR, 1.12 [1.09-1.16]) and 57.4% filled maintenance (children: 59.0%; adolescents or adults: 56.3%; OR, 1.12 [1.08-1.15]). In the 30 days post-event, 61.4% filled SABA (children: 69.7%; adolescents or adults: 55.6%; OR, 1.84 [1.78-1.90]) and 94.8% filled maintenance (children: 98.6%; adolescents or adults: 92.2%; OR, 6.09 [5.45-6.81]). CONCLUSION: Many patients treated as having moderate-to-severe asthma escalate SABA claims before a serious exacerbation, but approximately 40% have no anti-inflammatory maintenance fill, highlighting a "window of opportunity" to prevent exacerbations using inhaled corticosteroids concomitantly with SABA as rescue.

The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire enhances the assessment of asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Asthma control is often overestimated in routine practice, and despite advances in the understanding of immunopathology and the availability of new precision therapies, the burden of disease remains unacceptably high. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) with patient and physician assessments and the Asthma Control Test (ACT) in identifying asthma control. METHODS: Baseline data from a longitudinal study of the AIRQ were analyzed. Patients with asthma in the United States aged 12 years and older followed in 24 specialty practices and 1 specialty-affiliated primary care clinic were enrolled between May and November 2019. At entry, participants completed AIRQ and ACT, and participants and physicians completed 5-point Likert scale assessments of control. RESULTS: A total of 1112 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age = 43.9 [19.3] years, 70% of the female sex, 78% White). Overall, 62% of participants rated themselves as well- or completely controlled, and 54% were rated comparably by physicians. The ACT classified 49% of participants as well-controlled, with 35% similarly categorized by AIRQ. Previous-year exacerbations were experienced by 32% of participants who self-rated as well- or completely controlled, 30% who were rated as well- or completely controlled by physicians, and 29% assessed as well-controlled by ACT, but only 15% of those classified as well-controlled by AIRQ. CONCLUSION: The burden of asthma is substantial in patients cared for by asthma specialists, and asthma control is overestimated by patients, physicians, and the symptom-based ACT. The AIRQ assesses risk in addition to symptom control and may serve to improve asthma control determination by assessing previous exacerbations.

Relationship Between Asthma Control as Measured by the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) and Patient Perception of Disease Status, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Treatment Adherence.

Purpose: Critical asthma outcomes highlighted in clinical guidelines include asthma-related quality of life, asthma exacerbations, and asthma control. An easy-to-implement measure of asthma control that assesses both symptom impairment and exacerbation risk and reflects the impact of asthma on patients' lives is lacking. Hence, the objective of this study was to assess the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ®) construct validity relative to patient self-perception of asthma status and validated disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Patients and methods: Baseline data were analyzed from patients (aged ≥ 12 years) with asthma participating in a 12-month observational study assessing the ability of AIRQ to predict exacerbations. At entry, patients completed a sociodemographic questionnaire, AIRQ, 3 questions addressing self-perceived asthma status, Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), and Adult Asthma Adherence Questionnaire (AAAQ). Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical characteristics. AIRQ construct validity was evaluated by assessing correlations between total AIRQ score and patient self-assessments, SGRQ, mini-AQLQ, and AAAQ scores. Comparisons of SGRQ, mini-AQLQ, and AAAQ total and component/domain scores by AIRQ control category were performed using general linear models and Scheffe's post hoc adjustments for pairwise comparisons. Results: A total of 1112 patients were enrolled: 70% female, 78% White, mean (standard deviation) age 43.9 (19.5) years. There were highly significant correlations between AIRQ score and patient self-perception of overall control (r = 0.69; p < 0.001), total SGRQ (r = 0.74, p < 0.001), and mini-AQLQ (r = -0.78, p < 0.001) scores. As AIRQ control category worsened, so did total and domain SGRQ, mini-AQLQ, and AAAQ impediment-to-inhaled-corticosteroid-adherence scores (all pairwise comparisons p < 0.001). Conclusion: Findings demonstrate the construct validity of AIRQ relative to patient self-perception of asthma status, disease-specific PRO measures, and treatment adherence barriers. AIRQ can be a useful instrument to raise awareness of the unrecognized impacts of asthma on patients' lives.

The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) Control Level Predicts Future Risk of Asthma Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) is a 10-item, equally weighted, yes/no control tool validated in patients with asthma aged 12 years and older. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate AIRQ's ability to predict patient-reported exacerbations over 12 months. METHODS: Patients completed a baseline AIRQ during an in-person enrollment visit and reported exacerbations (ie, asthma-related courses of oral corticosteroids, emergency department/urgent care visits, and hospitalizations) via monthly online surveys. Logistic regressions were performed using AIRQ control level (well-controlled [WC], not well-controlled [NWC], very poorly controlled [VPC]), age, sex, race, and body mass index as covariates and 1 or more and 2 or more exacerbations as the dependent variables (adjusted odds ratios [OR] and 95% Wald CIs). Kaplan-Meier analyses of time to first exacerbation by AIRQ control level were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,112 patients were enrolled; 1,070 completed 1 or more surveys over 12 months (mean ± SD 10.5 ± 2.8 months); 70.5% female; age 43.9 ± 19.3 years; 20.4% non-White; body mass index 30.6 ± 8.7 kg/m2; AIRQ: WC 35.2%, NWC 38.1%, VPC 26.6%. A total of 45.7% of patients reported 1 or more exacerbations and 26.7% 2 or more exacerbations (WC 28.4% ≥ 1, 11.1% ≥ 2; NWC 46.3% ≥ 1, 27.9% ≥ 2; VPC 67.7% ≥ 1, 45.6% ≥ 2). The ORs for 1 or more exacerbations NWC versus WC were 2.1 (CI 1.6-2.9), and VPC versus WC were 4.6 (CI 3.3-6.5). The ORs for 2 or more exacerbations NWC versus WC were 3.1 (CI 2.1-4.6), and VPC versus WC were 6.1 (CI 4.0-9.1). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated clear differentiation of time to first exacerbation by AIRQ control level (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The AIRQ control level predicts exacerbation risk over 12 months and probability of time to first exacerbation.

Evaluating construct validity of the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire using a 3-month exacerbation recall.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent assessment of asthma control is essential to evaluating disease stability and intervention impacts. An assessment that can be administered between annual clinic visits is needed. The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) is a cross-sectionally validated, 10-item, yes or no, composite control tool evaluating previous 2-week symptoms and previous 12-month exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the construct validity of the AIRQ using a 3-month recall period for exacerbation-based risk questions and retaining the 2-week recall for symptom-based impairment items. METHODS: At baseline, patients completed the AIRQ with 12-month recall exacerbation items, Asthma Control Test (ACT), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and global self-assessments of asthma risk, control, and symptom severity. Patient-reported exacerbations were captured monthly. The AIRQ with 3-month recall exacerbation items, ACT, and global self-assessments was administered at months 3, 6, and 9, and SGRQ at month 6. RESULTS: A total of 1112 patients aged 12 years or older were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 43.9 [19.5] years). The AIRQ and each administration of the AIRQ with 3-month recall exacerbation items classified asthma control similarly to an ACT plus exacerbation validation standard. For both AIRQ versions, SGRQ scores were higher with worsening asthma control (P < .001). At months 3, 6, and 9, worse AIRQ control levels were associated with higher proportions of patients with 1 or more and 2 or more exacerbations in the previous 3 months and patient global self-assessments indicating greater asthma morbidity (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: The AIRQ using exacerbation risk items with a 3-month recall period exhibits construct validity for classifying current asthma control and can be administered between annual AIRQ assessments.

Demographics, Treatment Patterns, and Morbidity in Patients with Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction: An Administrative Claims Data Analysis.

PURPOSE: Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is generally treated with short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA) before exercising, to prevent symptoms. Real-world data on treatments and outcomes for patients with EIB alone (EIBalone), or with asthma (EIBasthma), in the USA are limited. This study compared demographics, treatment patterns, morbidity, and costs of treating EIB between these two groups of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Administrative claims from US IBM® MarketScan® Research databases were analyzed retrospectively. Patients aged ≥4 years filling a SABA claim between 1/1/2011 and 12/31/2016 were evaluated. Patients were indexed on a random SABA claim and required to have 12 months' continuous eligibility pre- and post-index, ≥1 maintenance medication and/or SABA fill post-index, and were designated EIBalone or EIBasthma according to diagnostic codes (EIB only or EIB plus asthma, respectively). Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: In total, 13,480 patients had EIBalone and 14,862 had EIBasthma. Compared with EIBasthma, the EIBalone group was older (mean[SD] 20.4[13.6] vs 17.8[13.6] years), had more females (60.7% vs 54.7%), and filled fewer SABA claims (1.9[1.4] vs 2.5[2.2]) (all p<0.001). A smaller proportion of patients in the EIBalone than EIBasthma group had maintenance therapy claims (79.9% vs 90.6%, p<0.001). The EIBalone group also had a lower proportion of patients with oral or injectable corticosteroid claims (29.4% vs 32.0%) and asthma and/or EIB-related emergency department (1.0% vs 13.0%) or outpatient visits (65.1% vs 72.3%; all p<0.0001). Annual days' supply of oral corticosteroids was similar between groups (mean[SD] EIBalone: 20.7[30.8] vs EIBasthma: 19.8[28] days). CONCLUSION: Individuals with EIBalone or EIBasthma demonstrate considerable morbidity. New treatment paradigms may be needed to optimize outcomes for both patient groups.

Intraclass Difference in Pneumonia Risk with Fluticasone and Budesonide in COPD: A Systematic Review of Evidence from Direct-Comparison Studies.

Background: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used and recommended to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While generally considered safe, several studies demonstrated an increased risk of pneumonia with the use of ICS in COPD patients. Although all ICS indicated for COPD carry the class labeling warning of increased pneumonia risk, evidence suggests an intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia between inhaled budesonide and fluticasone. To date, systematic reviews of direct-comparison studies have not been performed to assess if an intraclass difference exists. Research Question: This review investigated whether there is an intraclass difference in risk of pneumonia between inhaled fluticasone and budesonide, the 2 most commonly used ICS in COPD. Study Design and Methods: A search of the medical literature was conducted in PubMed and Embase for the time period of 01/01/69-05/31/19. The search strategy combined terms that defined the patient/disease type, exposures, outcome, and the study/publication type. Descriptive and comparative statistics reported for fluticasone- and budesonide-containing products in each study, including data for pneumonia event subgroups, were extracted and reported by dose, seriousness, or practice setting. Controlled clinical trials and observational studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodologic quality by using the appropriate tool from the list of study quality assessment tools developed by the National Institutes of Health. Results: The summary relative risk (RR) ratio across 5 included studies (57,199 patients) was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.09-1.19), representing a 13.5% increased risk of pneumonia among fluticasone users compared to budesonide users. Similarly, summary RR ratio for serious pneumonia implied a 14.4% increased risk of serious pneumonia among fluticasone users compared to budesonide users (pooled RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). Interpretation: There is likely a clinically important intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia between fluticasone- and budesonide-containing inhaled medications in COPD.

Development of the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ): A Composite Control Measure.

BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbation risk increases with worsening asthma control. Prevailing numerical control tools evaluate only current symptom impairment despite the importance of also assessing risk based on exacerbation history. An easy-to-use questionnaire addressing impairment and risk domains of control is needed. OBJECTIVE: To validate a composite asthma control tool that includes impairment and risk assessments (Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire [AIRQ]). METHODS: Four-hundred forty-two patients aged ≥12 years with physician-diagnosed asthma who were followed in specialty practices completed 15 impairment and risk questions with dichotomized yes/no responses. Patients spanned all Global Initiative for Asthma severities and were classified as well-controlled, not well-controlled, or very poorly controlled according to a standard of Asthma Control Test (ACT) score plus prior-year exacerbations. Logistic regression analyses identified questions with the greatest predictive validity to discriminate among patients and determine cut points for these 3 classifications. RESULTS: The final AIRQ comprises 10 equally weighted yes/no impairment and risk questions. The final 10-item models yielded receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.94 to identify well-controlled versus not well-/very poorly controlled and 0.93 to identify well-/not well-controlled versus very poorly controlled asthma, as reflected by the ACT plus prior-year exacerbations standard. Cut points of 0-1, 2-4, and 5-10 best represented well-, not well-, and very poorly controlled asthma. CONCLUSIONS: AIRQ is a rigorously validated composite measure designed to identify adults and adolescents with varying degrees of asthma control. Ongoing investigations will determine test-retest reliability, responsiveness to change, and predictive ability for future exacerbations.