Nationwide trends in hospitalization, medical costs, and mortality for asthma after introduction of biologics: A cross-sectional study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is the most common inflammatory lung disease in the United States. Since 2015, biologic therapies have provided targeted treatment for patients with severe asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trends for in-hospital outcomes of asthma before (2012-2014) and after (2016-2018) the introduction of biologic therapies for asthma. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional analysis of patients aged 2 years or older who were hospitalized for asthma between 2012 and 2018 using data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Outcomes included rates of asthma hospital admission and asthma-related 30-day readmission, hospital length of stay, hospital costs, and inpatient mortality. Generalized linear models assessed trends in rates of asthma admission and readmission, length of stay, costs, and mortality quarterly during 2012-2014 and 2016-2018. RESULTS: Among 691,537 asthma-related admissions, quarterly asthma admission rates significantly decreased (-0.90%, 95% CI = -1.46% to - 0.34%; P = 0.002) during 2016-2018, mainly among adults, but not during 2012-2014. Quarterly assessed readmission rates decreased by 2.40% (-2.85% to -1.96%; P < 0.0001) during 2012-2014 and by 2.12% (-2.74% to - 1.50%; P < 0.0001) during 2016-2018. Mean length of stay for asthma admissions decreased quarterly by 0.44% (-0.49% to - 0.38%; P < 0.0001) during 2012-2014 and by 0.27% (-0.34% to - 0.20%; P < 0.0001) during 2016-2018. Quarterly hospital costs for admissions were unchanged during 2012-2014 but increased by 0.28% (0.21% to 0.35%; P < 0.0001) during 2016-2018. There were no significant trends in inpatient mortality during 2012-2014 and 2016-2018. CONCLUSIONS: After the introduction of new biologics for severe asthma in 2015, asthma-related hospital admissions decreased significantly, whereas hospital costs increased. Asthma-related 30-day readmission rates and length of stay for asthma admissions continuously decreased, whereas inpatient mortality rates remained stable. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HL136945. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

Ensuring Access to Albuterol in Schools: From Policy to Implementation. An Official ATS/AANMA/ALA/NASN Policy Statement.

Rationale: For children with asthma, access to quick-relief medications is critical to minimizing morbidity and mortality. An innovative and practical approach to ensure access at school is to maintain a supply of stock albuterol that can be used by any student who experiences respiratory distress. To make this possible, state laws allowing for stock albuterol are needed to improve medication access.Objectives: To provide policy recommendations and outline steps for passing and implementing stock albuterol laws.Methods: We assembled a diverse stakeholder group and reviewed guidelines, literature, statutes, regulations, and implementation documents related to school-based medication access. Stakeholders were divided into two groups-legislation and implementation-on the basis of expertise. Each group met virtually to review documents and draft recommendations. Recommendations were compiled and revised in iterative remote meetings with all stakeholders.Main Results: We offer several recommendations for crafting state legislation and facilitating program implementation. 1) Create a coalition of stakeholders to champion legislation and implement stock albuterol programs. The coalition should include school administrators, school nurses and health personnel, parents, or caregivers of children with asthma, pediatric primary care and subspecialty providers (e.g., pulmonologists/allergists), pharmacists, health department staff, and local/regional/national advocacy organizations. 2) Legislative components critical for effective implementation of stock albuterol programs include specifying that medication can be administered in good faith to any child in respiratory distress, establishing training requirements for school staff, providing immunity from civil liability for staff and prescribers, ensuring pharmacy laws allow prescriptions to be dispensed to schools, and suggesting inhalers with valved holding chambers/spacers for administration. 3) Select an experienced and committed legislator to sponsor legislation and guide revisions as needed during passage and implementation. This person should be from the majority party and serve on the legislature's health or education committee. 4) Develop plans to disseminate legislation and regulations/policies to affected groups, including school administrators, school nurses, pharmacists, emergency responders, and primary/subspecialty clinicians. Periodically evaluate implementation effectiveness and need for adjustments.Conclusions: Stock albuterol in schools is a safe, practical, and potentially life-saving option for children with asthma, whether asthma is diagnosed or undiagnosed, who lack access to their personal quick-relief medication. Legislation is imperative for aiding in the adoption and implementation of school stock albuterol policies, and key policy inclusions can lay the groundwork for success. Future work should focus on passing legislation in all states, implementing policy in schools, and evaluating the impact of such programs on academic and health outcomes.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Health Utilities of Mild, Moderate, and Severe Asthma: Evidence from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

BACKGROUND: Little information is known about the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and the patient's preference values by the severity of asthma. We evaluated the HRQOL and health utility impairment associated with asthma severity using the SF-12 and SF-6D. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2010-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey database of asthma patients aged ≥18 years and categorized them into mild, moderate, and severe asthma. Study outcomes included the SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) for measuring HRQOL and SF-6D for health utility. Survey regression models were used to estimate HRQOL and utilities for mild, moderate, and severe asthma. RESULTS: Of 10,222 patients with asthma, 75.4%, 23.9%, and 0.8% had mild, moderate and severe asthma. We observed that the greater the severity, the lower the SF-6D scores: 0.731 in mild, 0.723 in moderate, and 0.659 in severe asthma (P < 0.001). Patients with severe asthma had a significantly lower PCS compared to those with mild asthma (-5.3; P < 0.001) but there was no significant difference in MCS (-1.9; P = 0.309) controlling for socioeconomic and clinical variables. Asthma severity, women, older age, and having a lower level education and public insurance were significantly associated with lower PCS (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Asthma patients had worse physical HRQOL than mental health, especially patients with severe asthma. These data suggest that the management of physical health of female, older aged, and low education patients with asthma should be focused on improving HRQOL.

Medical Costs and Productivity Loss Due to Mild, Moderate, and Severe Asthma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about economic and productivity loss by severity of asthma. We investigate health-care utilization, direct medical costs, and indirect costs due to productivity loss from asthma by severity. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey database (2010-2017) of patients with asthma aged ≥12 years and categorized them into mild, moderate, and severe asthma groups based on symptom control medications. Study outcomes included health-care utilization, direct medical costs, and indirect costs of asthma-related absenteeism. We used zero-inflated Poisson regression models to estimate incremental health-care utilization and generalized linear models to estimate incremental annual direct medical costs compared to patients without asthma. RESULTS: An estimated 139 million persons had an asthma diagnosis. Of patients with asthma, 77.1%, 22.2%, and 0.7% had mild, moderate, and severe asthma, respectively. Compared to patients without asthma, patients with asthma had incremental mean differences of 4.16 outpatient visits, 0.18 emergency department visits, and 0.07 hospitalizations per year. Annual direct medical costs were significantly associated with asthma severity ($3305 in mild, $7250 in moderate, and $9175 in severe asthma) (P < 0.05). Patients with mild, moderate, and severe asthma reported 0.76, 2.31, and 7.19 missed work or school days, resulting in $106, $321, and $1000 indirect costs per person per year, respectively. CONCLUSION: Asthma-related direct and indirect costs are significantly associated with asthma severity, with severe asthma medical costs being about three times higher than mild. Controlling asthma symptoms is important to reduce the economic and social burden of asthma.