A Simulation Study of the Effect of Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Choice on Reliever Medication Use, Symptom Control and Exacerbation Risk in Moderate-Severe Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between immediate symptom control, reliever medication use and exacerbation risk on treatment response and factors that modify it have not been assessed in an integrated manner. Here we apply simulation scenarios to evaluate the effect of individual baseline characteristics on treatment response in patients with moderate-severe asthma on regular maintenance dosing monotherapy with fluticasone propionate (FP) or combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) or budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR). METHODS: Reduction in reliever medication use (puffs/24 h), change in symptom control scores (ACQ-5), and annualised exacerbation rate over 12 months were simulated in a cohort of patients with different baseline characteristics (e.g. time since diagnosis, asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5) symptom score, smoking status, body mass index (BMI) and sex) using drug-disease models derived from large phase III/IV clinical studies. RESULTS: Simulation scenarios show that being a smoker, having higher baseline ACQ-5 and BMI, and long asthma history is associated with increased reliever medication use (p < 0.01). This increase correlates with a higher exacerbation risk and higher ACQ-5 scores over the course of treatment, irrespective of the underlying maintenance therapy. Switching non-responders to ICS monotherapy to combination therapy after 3 months resulted in immediate reduction in reliever medication use (i.e. 1.3 vs. 1.0 puffs/24 h for FP/SAL and BUD/FOR, respectively). In addition, switching patients with ACQ-5 > 1.5 at baseline to FP/SAL resulted in 34% less exacerbations than those receiving regular dosing BUD/FOR (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We have identified baseline characteristics of patients with moderate to severe asthma that are associated with greater reliever medication use, poor symptom control and higher exacerbation risk. Moreover, the effects of different inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) combinations vary significantly when considering long-term treatment performance. These factors should be considered in clinical practice as a basis for personalised management of patients with moderate-severe asthma symptoms.

In this study we looked at how different factors affect the response to asthma treatment in people with moderate to severe asthma who are taking regular medication. Specifically, we wanted to quantify how much asthma duration, differences in the degree of symptom control and lung function, as well as smoking habit, body weight, and sex influence how well someone responds to regular maintenance therapy. Using computer simulations based on models obtained from data in a large patient population with moderate­severe asthma, we explored scenarios that reflect real-life management of patients undergoing treatment with inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination with long-acting beta agonists over a 12-month period. We looked at how much reliever inhaler they use, how well they rate their asthma control, and how often they have asthma attacks. By considering these results together, we evaluated how well the treatments work on ongoing symptoms and/or reduce the risk of future asthma attacks. Our simulations showed that smokers, people with higher asthma symptom scores, who are obese, and have a longer history of asthma tend to use their reliever inhalers more often. This was linked to a higher risk of having asthma attacks and worse symptom control. Switching those patients who do not respond well to their initial treatment with corticosteroid to combination therapy reduced how much reliever inhaler they need. Also, the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination therapy were greater than budesonide/formoterol. In conclusion, our study found that certain patient characteristics can predict how well someone responds to asthma treatment.

Asthma patients' and physicians' perspectives on the burden and management of asthma: Post-hoc analysis of APPaRENT 1 and 2 to assess predictors of treatment adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Patient adherence to maintenance medication is critical for improving clinical outcomes in asthma and is a recommended guiding factor for treatment strategy. Previously, the APPaRENT studies assessed patient and physician perspectives on asthma care; here, a post-hoc analysis aimed to identify patient factors associated with good adherence and treatment prescription patterns. METHODS: APPaRENT 1 and 2 were cross-sectional online surveys of 2866 adults with asthma and 1883 physicians across Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Mexico, and the Philippines in 2020-2021. Combined data assessed adherence to maintenance medication, treatment goals, use of asthma action plans, and physician treatment patterns and preferences. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between patient characteristics and both treatment prescription (by physicians) and patient treatment adherence. RESULTS: Patient and physician assessments of treatment goals and adherence differed, as did reporting of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions alongside maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Older age and greater patient-reported severity and reliever use were associated with better adherence. Patient-reported prescription of SABA with MART was associated with household smoking, severe or poorly controlled asthma, and living in China or the Philippines. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed an important disconnect between patient and physician treatment goals and treatment adherence, suggesting that strategies for improving patient adherence to maintenance medication are needed, focusing on younger patients with milder disease. High reliever use despite good adherence may indicate poor disease control. Personalised care considering patient characteristics alongside physician training in motivational communication and shared decision-making could improve patient management and outcomes.

Pharmacology Versus Convenience: A Benefit/Risk Analysis of Regular Maintenance Versus Infrequent or As-Needed Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Mild Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the bronchoprotective and benefit/risk profiles of various inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosing regimens in mild asthma. METHODS: A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model was developed and validated describing the relationship between ICS dose and time-course for airway bronchoprotection, [provocative concentration of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) causing ≥ 20% decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (AMP PC20)], for fluticasone furoate (FF), fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD). For regular ICS maintenance therapy (100% and 50% adherence) and infrequent or as-needed use (dosing 3-4 times per week), treatment effectiveness was expressed as percent time during 28 days when bronchoprotection exceeded either the threshold for a treatment-related bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 0.25 doubling dose) or the threshold for a clinically significant bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 1.0 doubling dose). This value was divided by the total ICS dose administered expressed in prednisolone equivalents to give a therapeutic index (TI). RESULTS: The model-predicted time course of ICS-induced bronchoprotection with regular daily maintenance dosing and 100% adherence showed that all ICS at the highest recommended doses for mild asthma exceeded the threshold for clinically significant bronchoprotective effect for all or most of the 28-day dosing period, mean (90% CI); 100% (96.1-100), 99.9% (8.0-100) and 100% (58.2-100) with TI values of 16.9, 6.6 and 5.4 for FF 100 µg OD, FP 200 µg BID and BUD 200 µg BID, respectively. For simulated poor adherence (50%) to regular daily maintenance therapy, corresponding mean (90% CI) values were; 75.7% (39.4-89.1), 52.3% (0.7-69.2) and 51.3% (28.6-58.3) with TI values of 25.7, 6.9 and 5.6. For simulated infrequent/as needed use the corresponding values were; 77.0% (37.6-87.0), 25.5% (0.0-38.0) and 26.2% (14.3-31.5) with TI values of 26.1, 6.7 and 5.7. For all regimen/scenarios, FF had the most sustained efficacy and favourable TI followed by FP and BUD. CONCLUSIONS: At doses recommended for mild asthma, all ICS regimens provide sustained bronchoprotective efficacy when dosed regularly with high adherence. With poor adherence or use 3-4 times per week (infrequent/as needed), longer-acting ICS molecules will more likely provide sustained protection and a better TI versus shorter duration of action molecules (FF > FP ≥ BUD). These data highlight the benefits of using ICS as regular daily maintenance dosing in mild asthma and the potential risks of under-treatment with ICS (which may occur with ICS/formoterol as-needed approach in mild persistent asthma) associated with reduced levels of bronchoprotection.