Individualised risk prediction model for exacerbations in patients with severe asthma: protocol for a multicentre real-world risk modelling study.

INTRODUCTION: Severe asthma is associated with a disproportionally high disease burden, including the risk of severe exacerbations. Accurate prediction of the risk of severe exacerbations may enable clinicians to tailor treatment plans to an individual patient. This study aims to develop and validate a novel risk prediction model for severe exacerbations in patients with severe asthma, and to examine the potential clinical utility of this tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The target population is patients aged 18 years or older with severe asthma. Based on the data from the International Severe Asthma Registry (n=8925), a prediction model will be developed using a penalised, zero-inflated count model that predicts the rate or risk of exacerbation in the next 12 months. The risk prediction tool will be externally validated among patients with physician-assessed severe asthma in an international observational cohort, the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (n=1652). Validation will include examining model calibration (ie, the agreement between observed and predicted rates), model discrimination (ie, the extent to which the model can distinguish between high-risk and low-risk individuals) and the clinical utility at a range of risk thresholds. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has obtained ethics approval from the Institutional Review Board of National University of Singapore (NUS-IRB-2021-877), the Anonymised Data Ethics and Protocol Transparency Committee (ADEPT1924) and the University of British Columbia (H22-01737). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies, EU PAS Register (EUPAS46088).

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs.

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy.

Characterization of Severe Asthma Worldwide: Data From the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Clinical characteristics of the international population with severe asthma are unknown. Intercountry comparisons are hindered by variable data collection within regional and national severe asthma registries. We aimed to describe demographic and clinical characteristics of patients treated in severe asthma services in the United States, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: The International Severe Asthma Registry retrospectively and prospectively collected data in patients with severe asthma (≥ 18 years old), receiving Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 5 treatment or with severe asthma remaining uncontrolled at GINA Step 4. Baseline demographic and clinical data were collected from the United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Italy, and the Severe Asthma Web-based Database registry (including Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand) from December 2014 to December 2017. RESULTS: We included 4,990 patients. Mean (SD) age was 55.0 (15.9) years, and mean (SD) age at asthma onset was 30.7 (17.7) years. Patients were predominantly female (59.3%) and white (72.6%), had never smoked (60.5%), and were overweight or obese (70.4%); 34.9% were at GINA Step 5; and 57.2% had poorly controlled disease. A total of 51.1% of patients were receiving regular intermittent oral corticosteroids, and 25.4% were receiving biologics (72.6% for those at GINA Step 5). Mean (SD) exacerbation rate was 1.7 (2.7) per year. Intercountry variation was observed in clinical characteristics, prescribed treatments, and biomarker profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Using a common data set and definitions, this study describes severe asthma characteristics of a large patient cohort included in multiple severe asthma registries and identifies country differences. Whether these are related to underlying epidemiological factors, environmental factors, phenotypes, asthma management systems, treatment access, and/or cultural factors requires further study.

A Patient-Centered Description of Severe Asthma: Patient Understanding Leading to Assessment for a Severe Asthma Referral (PULSAR)

BACKGROUND: Although severe asthma can be life-threatening, many patients are unaware they have this condition. OBJECTIVES: Patient Understanding Leading to Assessment for a Severe Asthma Referral (PULSAR) is a novel, multidisciplinary working group aiming to develop and disseminate a global, patient-centered description of severe asthma to improve patient understanding of severe asthma and effect a change in patient behavior whereby patients are encouraged to visit their healthcare professional, when appropriate. METHODS: Current definitions from patient organization websites, asthma guidelines, and medication information for key asthma drugs were assessed and informed a multidisciplinary working group, convened to identify common concepts and terminology used to define severe asthma. A patient-centered description of severe asthma and patient checklist were drafted based on working-group discussions and reviewed by an external behavioral scientist for patient understanding and relevance. These were tested using an online US/Canadian survey. RESULTS: The patient-centered description of severe asthma and patient checklist were reviewed and re-drafted by the authors. The text was simplified following the behavioral-scientist review. The survey (n = 153) included 105 patients with severe asthma. Of those with severe asthma, 92.2% of patients reported that the description was consistent with their experiences of severe asthma and 92.6% of patients reported that the PULSAR initiative would encourage them to visit their healthcare provider. CONCLUSION: A patient-centered description of severe asthma has been developed and tested using patients with severe asthma; this description will allow patients to assess whether they might have severe asthma and prompt them to visit their healthcare provider, if appropriate.

Severe asthma is a serious form of asthma. It can be harmful to your health and affect the way you live your life. Some patients do not know that they have severe asthma or visit their doctor and ask for help. A new group, called Patient Understanding Leading to Assessment for a Severe Asthma Referral (PULSAR), would like to help patients understand their asthma symptoms. They have developed a description of severe asthma and a checklist. These may help patients decide if their symptoms require a visit to the doctor.The PULSAR description and checklist were developed in four parts. Part 1 looked at if patients and doctors/nurses defined severe asthma in the same way. Results showed that patients defined severe asthma using symptoms and doctors defined severe asthma using treatments. In Part 2, patients, patient advocacy group members, nurses, doctors, specialists, and a scientist talked about the ways severe asthma were described in Part 1. The group agreed on a set of words to describe severe asthma. These words were then used in the PULSAR description and checklist. In Part 3, a behavioral scientist reviewed the PULSAR description and checklist. They said that simple language would make it easy to understand. In Part 4, patients with severe asthma were asked what they thought about the description and checklist using an online survey. The survey showed that almost all patients understood the description and checklist. Many patients said that the description and checklist encouraged them to see a doctor.A new description of severe asthma and checklist have been developed by PULSAR. Testing shows that they should encourage patients to visit their doctor when needed. This may help patients understand their symptoms and help doctors make the correct diagnosis. This should help patients get the support and treatment they need.

Pediatric asthma: An unmet need for more effective, focused treatments.

BACKGROUND: Despite remarkable advances in our understanding of asthma, there are still several unmet needs associated with the management of pediatric asthma. METHODS: A two-day, face-to-face meeting was held in London, United Kingdom, on October 28 and 29, 2017, involving a group of international expert clinicians and scientists in asthma management to discuss the challenges and unmet needs that remain to be addressed in pediatric asthma. RESULTS: These unmet needs include a lack of clinical efficacy and safety evidence, and limited availability of non-steroid-based alternative therapies in patients <6 years of age. An increased focus on children is needed in the context of clinical practice guidelines for asthma; current pediatric practice relies mostly on extrapolations from adult recommendations. Furthermore, no uniform definition of pediatric asthma exists, which hampers timely and robust diagnosis of the condition in affected patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a uniform definition of pediatric asthma, clearly distinguishable from adult asthma. Furthermore, guidelines which provide specific treatment recommendations for the management of pediatric asthma are also needed. Clinical trials and real-world evidence studies assessing anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) therapies and other monoclonal antibodies in children <6 years of age with asthma may provide further information regarding the most appropriate treatment options in these vulnerable patients. Early intervention with anti-IgE and non-steroid-based alternative therapies may delay disease progression, leading to improved clinical outcomes.

Does Changing Inhaler Device Impact Real-Life Asthma Outcomes? Clinical and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Inhaler usability and deposition differ between devices. Change of device may therefore have an impact on clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To characterize clinical and economic asthma outcomes surrounding the change from a dry powder inhaler (DPI) to a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) for fixed-dose combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß agonist (FDC ICS/LABA) treatment. METHODS: Three retrospective cohort substudies using 2010 to 2015 data from the Korean Health Insurance and Review Assessment Service database were performed. Patients with asthma who received an FDC ICS/LABA pMDI for the first time after initially being on FDC ICS/LABA DPI were included. The following outcomes were assessed: (1) persistence of change to pMDI over 6 months, (2) clinical outcomes during the year after the change compared with the baseline year; and (3) noninferiority comparison of costs and effectiveness between patients changing to a pMDI and matched patients who continued their DPI. RESULTS: Patients who change inhalers seem to represent a more severe subpopulation. Fifty-eight percent of patients (95% CI, 56-60) persisted with the change. After the change in therapy, an increased proportion of patients (58.3%) remained free from severe exacerbations compared with the year before (47.4%; P < .001). Patients who changed to pMDIs had significantly less severe exacerbations, acute respiratory events, and lower short-acting ß agonist inhaler average daily dose, but higher average ICS daily dose (all P < .05), compared with matched patients remaining on a DPI. Total costs were similar between patients who changed to pMDI therapy compared with those remaining on a DPI. CONCLUSION: Changing from a DPI to a pMDI for FDC ICS/LABA asthma treatment can be as effective and cost-effective as remaining on a DPI.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with incremental systemic corticosteroid exposure in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Although systemic corticosteroid (SCS) treatment, irrespective of duration or dosage, is associated with adverse outcomes for patients with asthma, the longitudinal effects of this treatment on adverse outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and healthcare costs are unknown. METHODS: We identified patients initiating intermittent or long-term SCS who were diagnosed with active asthma from UK general practice with linked secondary care data. Control (non-SCS) patients were matched by sex and index date with those initiating SCS. Minimum baseline period was 1 year prior to index date; minimum follow-up duration was 2 years post-index date. Cumulative incidence of SCS-associated adverse outcomes and associated HCRU and costs were compared between SCS and non-SCS patient groups and among average SCS daily exposure categories. Associations between exposure and annualized HCRU and costs were assessed, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Analyses included 9413 matched pairs. Median (interquartile range) follow up was as follows: SCS group: 7.1 (4.1-11.8) years; control group: 6.4 (3.8-10.0) years. Greater SCS dosages were correlated with greater cumulative incidence. For example, patients with type 2 diabetes receiving an average daily dosage of ≥7.5 mg had a 15-year cumulative incidence (37.5%) that was 1.5-5 times greater than those receiving lower dosages. HCRU and costs increased annually for SCS patients but not for non-SCS patients. Increases in all-cause adverse outcome (excluding asthma)-associated HCRU and costs were dose-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Over the long term, adverse outcomes associated with SCS initiation were relatively frequent and costly, with a positive dosage-response relationship with SCS exposure.

Real-world effectiveness evaluation of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax for the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Budesonide/formoterol (BF) Spiromax ® is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler, designed to minimise common inhaler errors and provide reliable and consistent dose delivery in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated non-inferiority of BF Spiromax after changing from another FDC inhaler, compared with continuing the original inhaler. METHODS: Patients with asthma and/or COPD who switched to BF Spiromax were matched (1:3) with non-switchers. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the UK. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving disease control (using the risk domain control (RDC) algorithm); secondary end points were: exacerbation rate, short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) use and treatment stability (achieved RDC; no maintenance treatment change). Non-inferiority was defined as having 95% CI lower bound above -10%, using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Comparing 385 matched patients (asthma 253; COPD 132) who switched to BF Spiromax with 1091 (asthma 743; COPD 348) non-switchers, non-inferiority of BF Spiromax in RDC was demonstrated (adjusted difference: +6.6%; 95% CI -0.3 to 13.5). Among patients with asthma, switchers to BF Spiromax versus BF Turbuhaler® reported fewer exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio (RR) 0.76;95% CI 0.60 to 0.99; p=0.044); were less likely to use high daily doses of SABA (adjusted OR 0.71;95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; p=0.034); used fewer SABA inhalers (adjusted RR 0.92;95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; p=0.019); and were more likely to achieve treatment stability (adjusted OR 1.44;95% CI 1.02 to 2.04; p=0.037). No significant differences in these end points were seen among patients with COPD. CONCLUSIONS: Among UK patients with asthma and COPD, real-world use of BF Spiromax was non-inferior to BF Turbuhaler in terms of disease control. Among patients with asthma, switching to BF Spiromax was associated with reduced exacerbations, reduced SABA use and improved treatment stability versus continuing on BF Turbuhaler.

Exogenous sex steroid hormones and asthma in females: protocol for a population-based retrospective cohort study using a UK primary care database.

INTRODUCTION: Female sex steroid hormones have been implicated in sex-related differences in the development and clinical outcomes of asthma. The role of exogenous sex steroids, however, remains unclear. Our recent systematic review highlighted the lack of high-quality population-based studies investigating this subject. We aim to investigate whether the use of hormonal contraception and hormone replacement therapy (HRT), subtypes and route of administration are associated with asthma onset and clinical outcomes in reproductive age and perimenopausal/postmenopausal females. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD), a national primary care database in the UK, we will construct a retrospective longitudinal cohort of reproductive age (16-45 years) and perimenopausal/postmenopausal (46-70 years) females. We will estimate the risk of new-onset asthma using Cox regression and multilevel modelling for repeated asthma outcomes, such as asthma attacks. We will adjust for confounding factors in all analyses. We will evaluate interactions between the use of exogenous sex hormones and body mass index and smoking by calculating the relative excess risk due to interaction and the attributable proportion due to interaction. With 90% power, we need 23 700 reproductive age females to detect a 20% reduction (risk ratio 0.8) in asthma attacks for use of any hormonal contraception and 6000 perimenopausal/postmenopausal females to detect a 40% (risk ratio 1.40) increased risk of asthma attacks for use of any HRT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have obtained approval (ADEPT1317) from the Anonymised Data Ethics and Protocol Transparency Committee which grants project-specific ethics approvals for the use of OPCRD data. Optimum Patient Care has an existing NHS Health Research Authority ethics approval for the use of OPCRD data for research (15/EM/150). We will present our findings at national and international scientific meetings and publish the results in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUPAS22967.

Healthcare resource use and costs of severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma in the UK general population.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence of severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (SUEA) and associated costs. AIMS: We sought to determine the prevalence of SUEA and compare asthma-related healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated costs with overall means for a general asthma population. METHODS: This cohort study evaluated anonymised medical record data (December 1989 through June 2015) from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the Optimum Patient Care Research Database to study UK patients with active asthma (diagnostic code and one or more drug prescriptions in the baseline year), aged 5 years and older, without concomitant COPD, and with recorded eosinophil count. SUEA was defined as two or more asthma attacks during 1 baseline year preceding a high blood eosinophil count (≥0.3×109/L) for patients prescribed long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) and high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) during baseline plus 1 follow-up year. We compared asthma-related HCRU and associated direct costs (2015 pounds sterling, £) during the follow-up year for SUEA versus the general asthma population. RESULTS: Of 363 558 patients with active asthma and recorded eosinophil count, 64% were women, mean (SD) age was 49 (21) years; 43% had high eosinophil counts, 7% had two or more attacks in the baseline year and 10% were prescribed high-dosage ICS/LABA for 2 study years. Overall, 2940 (0.81%; 95% CI 0.78% to 0.84%) patients had SUEA. Total mean per-patient HCRU and associated costs were four times greater for SUEA versus all patients (HCRU and cost ratios 3.9; 95% CI 3.7 to 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: Less than 1% of patients in a general asthma population had SUEA. These patients accounted for substantially greater asthma-related HCRU and costs than average patients with asthma.

Initiating or changing to a fixed-dose combination of Fluticasone propionate/Formoterol over Fluticasone propionate/Salmeterol: A real-life effectiveness and cost impact evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma has a substantial impact on quality of life and health care resources. The identification of a more cost-effective, yet equally efficacious, treatment could positively influence the economic burden of this disease. Fluticasone propionate/Formoterol (FP/FOR) may be as effective as Fluticasone Salmeterol (FP/SAL). We evaluated non-inferiority of asthma control in terms of the proportion of patients free from exacerbations, and conducted a cost impact analysis. METHODS: This historical, matched cohort database study evaluated two treatment groups in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database in the UK: 1) an FP/FOR cohort of patients initiating treatment with FP/FOR or changing from FP/SAL to FP/FOR and; 2) an FP/SAL cohort comprising patients initiating, or remaining on FP/SAL pMDI combination therapy. The main outcome evaluated non-inferiority of effectiveness (defined as prevention of severe exacerbations, lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between groups in patient proportions with no exacerbations is -3.5% or higher) in patients treated with FP/FOR versus FP/SAL. RESULTS: After matching 1:3, we studied a total of 2472 patients: 618 in the FP/FOR cohort (174 patients initiated on FP/FOR and 444 patients changed to FP/FOR) and 1854 in the FP/SAL cohort (522 patients initiated FP/SAL and 1332 continued FP/SAL). The percentage of patients prescribed FP/FOR met non-inferiority as the adjusted mean difference in proportion of no severe exacerbations (95%CI) was 0.008 (-0.032, 0.047) between the two cohorts. No other significant differences were observed except acute respiratory event rates, which were lower for patients prescribed FP/FOR (rate ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.71, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Changing to, or initiating FP/FOR combination therapy, is associated with a non-inferior proportion of patients who are severe exacerbation-free at a lower average annual cost compared with continuing or initiating treatment with FP/SAL.

Cost comparison of asthma treatments in 12-week study: caution about matching and short observational follow-up.

In the absence of randomisation, observational studies must take extra care to create treatment groups that are comparable in terms of key characteristics. Various matching methods exist which can create sound comparisons, minimising confounding where possible. A recent observational study by Dal Negro et al. carried out a cost analysis comparing two asthma medications. They report strong conclusions which favour one treatment over the other, however they include little discussion on the limitations of their study. The purpose of this letter is to comment on the weaknesses of the study design, including the level of matching used, and to urge readers to consider these issues alongside the interpretation of results.

UK prescribing practices as proxy markers of unmet need in allergic rhinitis: a retrospective observational study.

Little data on UK prescribing patterns and treatment effectiveness for allergic rhinitis (AR) are available. We quantified unmet pharmacologic needs in AR by assessing AR treatment effectiveness based on the prescribing behaviour of UK general practitioners (GP) during two consecutive pollen seasons (2009 and 2010). We conducted a retrospective observational study with the data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. We assessed diagnoses and prescription data for patients with a recorded diagnosis of rhinitis who took rhinitis medication during the study period. We assessed the data from 25,069 patients in 2009 and 22,381 patients in 2010. Monotherapy was the initial prescription of the season for 67% of patients with seasonal AR (SAR) and 77% of patients with nonseasonal upper airways disease (NSUAD), for both years. Initial oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INS) monotherapy proved insufficient for >20% of SAR and >37% of NSUAD patients. Multiple therapy was the initial prescription for 33% of SAR and 23% of NSUAD in both years, rising to 45% and >50% by season end, respectively. For NSUAD, dual-therapy prescriptions doubled and triple-therapy prescriptions almost tripled during both seasons. Many patients revisited their GP regardless of initial prescription. Initial OAH or INS monotherapy provides insufficient symptom control for many AR patients. GPs often prescribe multiple therapies at the start of the season, with co-prescription becoming more common as the season progresses. However, patients prescribed multiple therapies frequently revisit their GP, presumably to adjust treatment. These data suggest the need for more effective AR treatment and management strategies.

Characteristics of patients making serious inhaler errors with a dry powder inhaler and association with asthma-related events in a primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: Correct inhaler technique is central to effective delivery of asthma therapy. The study aim was to identify factors associated with serious inhaler technique errors and their prevalence among primary care patients with asthma using the Diskus dry powder inhaler (DPI). METHODS: This was a historical, multinational, cross-sectional study (2011-2013) using the iHARP database, an international initiative that includes patient- and healthcare provider-reported questionnaires from eight countries. Patients with asthma were observed for serious inhaler errors by trained healthcare providers as predefined by the iHARP steering committee. Multivariable logistic regression, stepwise reduced, was used to identify clinical characteristics and asthma-related outcomes associated with ≥1 serious errors. RESULTS: Of 3681 patients with asthma, 623 (17%) were using a Diskus (mean [SD] age, 51 [14]; 61% women). A total of 341 (55%) patients made ≥1 serious errors. The most common errors were the failure to exhale before inhalation, insufficient breath-hold at the end of inhalation, and inhalation that was not forceful from the start. Factors significantly associated with ≥1 serious errors included asthma-related hospitalization the previous year (odds ratio [OR] 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-3.40); obesity (OR 1.75; 1.17-2.63); poor asthma control the previous 4 weeks (OR 1.57; 1.04-2.36); female sex (OR 1.51; 1.08-2.10); and no inhaler technique review during the previous year (OR 1.45; 1.04-2.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with evidence of poor asthma control should be targeted for a review of their inhaler technique even when using a device thought to have a low error rate.

Blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma disease burden: a UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Elevated sputum eosinophil counts predict asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids but are impractical to measure in primary care. We investigated the relation between blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma outcomes for a large UK cohort. METHODS: This historical cohort study used anonymised medical record data to identify primary care patients with asthma aged 12-80 years with 2 years of continuous records, including 1 year before (baseline) and 1 year after (outcome) their most recent eosinophil count. Negative binomial regression was used to compare outcome exacerbation rates and logistic regression to compare odds of asthma control for patients with blood eosinophil counts of 400 cells per µL or less versus greater than 400 cells per µL, adjusting for age, sex, body-mass index, smoking status, and Charlson comorbidity index. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02140541. FINDINGS: Overall, 20 929 (16%) of 130 248 patients had blood eosinophil counts greater than 400 cells per µL. During the outcome year, these patients experienced significantly more severe exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 1·42, 95% CI 1·36-1·47) and acute respiratory events (RR 1·28, 1·24-1·33) than those with counts of 400 cells per µL or less. They also had significantly lower odds of achieving overall asthma control (OR 0·74, 95% CI 0·72-0·77), defined as limited reliever use and no asthma-related hospital attendance or admission, acute course of oral corticosteroids, or prescription for antibiotics. Exacerbation rates increased progressively with nine ascending categories of blood eosinophil count as compared with a reference category of 200 cells per µL or less. INTERPRETATION: Patients with asthma and blood eosinophil counts greater than 400 cells per µL experience more severe exacerbations and have poorer asthma control. Furthermore, a count-response relation exists between blood eosinophil counts and asthma-related outcomes. Blood eosinophil counts could add predictive value to Global Initiative for Asthma control-based risk assessment. FUNDING: Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Real-world characterization and differentiation of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease strategy classification.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to characterize and differentiate the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy 2011 cut points through the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) assessment test (CAT). METHODS: Analysis of COPD patient data from the 2012 Adelphi Respiratory Disease Specific Program was conducted in Europe and US. Matched data from physicians and patients included CAT and mMRC scores. Receiver operating characteristic curves and kappa analysis determined a cut point for CAT and mMRC alignment and thus defined patient movement ("movers") within GOLD groups A-D, depending on the tool used. Logistic regression analysis, with a number of physician- and patient-reported covariates, characterized those movers. RESULTS: Comparing GOLD-defined high-symptom patients using mMRC and CAT cut points (≥2 and ≥10, respectively), there were 890 (53.65%) movers; 887 of them (99.66%) moved from less symptomatic GOLD groups A and C (using mMRC) to more symptomatic groups B and D (using CAT). For receiver operating characteristic (area under the curve: 0.82, P<0.001) and kappa (maximized: 0.45) recommended CAT cut points of ≥24 and ≥26, movers reduced to 429 and 403 patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed variables significantly associated with movers were related to impact on normal life, age, cough, and sleep (all P<0.05). Within movers, direction of movement was significantly associated with the same variables (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Use of current mMRC or CAT cut points leads to inconsistencies for COPD assessment classification. It is recommended that cut points are aligned and both tools administered simultaneously for optimal patient care and to allow for closer management of movers. Our research may suggest an opportunity to investigate a combined score approach to patient management based on the worst result of mMRC and CAT. The reduced number of remaining movers may then identify patients who have greater impact of disease and may require a more personalized treatment plan.

The at-risk registers in severe asthma (ARRISA) study: a cluster-randomised controlled trial examining effectiveness and costs in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patients at risk of severe exacerbations contribute disproportionally to asthma mortality, morbidity and costs. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of using 'asthma risk registers' for these patients in primary care. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised trial, 29 primary care practices identified 911 at-risk asthma patients using British asthma guideline criteria (severe asthma plus adverse psychosocial characteristics). Intervention practices added electronic alerts to identified patients' records to flag their at-risk status and received practice-based training about using the alerts to improve patient access and opportunistic management. Control practices continued routine care. Numbers of patients experiencing the primary outcome of a moderate-severe exacerbation (resulting in death, hospitalisation, accident and emergency attendance, out-of-hours contact, or a course/boost in oral prednisolone for asthma), other healthcare and medication usage, and costs over 1 year were derived from practice-based records. RESULTS: There was no significant effect on exacerbations (control: 46.5%; intervention: 53.6%, OR, 95% CI 1.30, 0.93 to 1.80). However, this composite outcome masked relative reductions in intervention patients experiencing hospitalisations (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94), accident and emergency (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.31) and out-of-hours contacts (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.37); and a relative increase in prednisolone prescription for exacerbations (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85). Furthermore, prescription of nebulised short-acting ß-agonists reduced and long-acting ß-agonists increased for intervention relative to control patients. The adjusted mean per patient healthcare cost was £138.21 lower (p=0.837) among intervention practices. CONCLUSION: Using asthma risk registers in primary care did not reduce treated exacerbations, but reduced hospitalisations and increased prescriptions of recommended preventative therapies without increasing costs.