Development and validation of a claims-based algorithm to identify moderate exacerbations in patients with asthma treated in the US.

INTRODUCTION: Definitions of moderate asthma exacerbation have been inconsistent, making their economic burden difficult to assess. An algorithm to accurately identify moderate exacerbations from claims data is needed. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of Reliant Medical Group patients aged ≥18 years, with ≥1 prescription claim for inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist, and ≥1 medical claim with a diagnosis code for asthma was conducted. The objective was to refine current algorithms to identify moderate exacerbations in claims data and assess the refined algorithm's performance. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were assessed via chart review of 150 moderate exacerbations events and 50 patients without exacerbations. Sensitivity analyses assessed alternative algorithms and compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) between algorithm-identified patients (claims group) and those confirmed by chart review (confirmed group) to have experienced a moderate exacerbation. RESULTS: Algorithm-identified moderate exacerbations were: visit of ≤1 day with an asthma exacerbation diagnosis OR visit of ≤1 day with selected asthma diagnoses AND ≥1 respiratory pharmacy claim, excluding systemic corticosteroids, within 14 days after the first claim. The algorithm's PPV was 42%; the NPV was 78%. HRU was similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: This algorithm identified potential moderate exacerbations from claims data; however, the modest PPV underscores its limitations in identifying moderate exacerbations, although performance was partially due to identification of previously unidentified severe exacerbations. Application of this algorithm in future claims-based studies may help quantify the economic burden of moderate and severe exacerbations in asthma when an algorithm identifying severe exacerbations is applied first.

Frequency and economic burden of exacerbations in inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist-treated patients with asthma: A retrospective US claims study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite adherence to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, many patients with asthma experience moderate exacerbations. Data on the impact of moderate exacerbations on the healthcare system are limited. This study assessed the frequency and economic burden of moderate exacerbations in patients receiving ICS/LABA. METHODS: Retrospective, longitudinal study analyzed data from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database recorded between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Eligibility criteria included patients ≥18 years of age with ≥1 ICS/LABA claim and ≥1 medical claim for asthma in the 12 months pre-index (first ICS/LABA claim). Primary objectives included describing moderate exacerbation frequency, and associated healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs. A secondary objective was assessing the relationship between moderate exacerbations and subsequent risk of severe exacerbations. Patients were stratified by moderate exacerbation frequency in the 12 months post index. Moderate exacerbations were identified using a newly developed algorithm. RESULTS: In the first 12 months post index 61.6% of patients experienced ≥1 moderate exacerbation. Mean number of asthma-related visits was 4.1 per person/year and median total asthma-related costs was $3544. HRU and costs increased with increasing exacerbation frequency. Outpatient and inpatient visits accounted for a similar proportion of these costs. Moderate exacerbations were associated with an increased rate and risk of future severe exacerbations (incidence rate ratio, 1.56; hazard ratio, 1.51 [both p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted that a high proportion of patients continue to experience moderate exacerbations despite ICS/LABA therapy and subsequently experience increased economic burden and risk of future severe exacerbations.

Burden of Disease in Patients with Mild or Mild-to-Moderate Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Group A or B): A Systematic Literature Review.

Background: Patients with mild or mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), defined as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group A/B, are regarded as having a lower risk of experiencing multiple or severe exacerbations compared with patients classified as GOLD group C/D. Current guidelines suggest that patients in GOLD A/B should commence treatment with a bronchodilator; however, some patients within this population who have a higher disease burden may benefit from earlier introduction of dual bronchodilator or inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapies. This study aimed to provide research-based insights into the burden of disease experienced by patients classified as GOLD A/B, and to identify characteristics associated with poorer outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify evidence (burden of disease and prevalence data) relating to the population of interest (patients with COPD classified as GOLD A/B). Results: A total of 79 full-text publications and four conference abstracts were included. In general, the rates of moderate and severe exacerbations were higher among patients in GOLD group B than among those in group A. Among patients classified as GOLD A/B, the risk of exacerbation was higher in those with more symptoms (modified Medical Research Council or COPD Assessment Test scales) and more severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted). Conclusion: Data from this SLR provide clear evidence of a heavier burden of disease for patients in GOLD B, compared with those in GOLD A, and highlight factors associated with worse outcomes for patients in GOLD A/B.

Disease Burden and Healthcare Utilization Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in England.

Purpose: Clinical guidelines for COPD management suggest pharmacologic treatment algorithms based on symptoms and exacerbation history. As previous research has suggested that prescribing patterns are not always aligned with these recommendations, this study investigated the burden of disease in patients with COPD receiving, and persisting on, new inhaled maintenance therapy. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective observational study using two linked electronic databases containing health records of patients in England. Patients aged ≥35 years with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD, and who initiated a new inhaled respiratory pharmacologic maintenance regimen between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 (index date) were eligible for inclusion. New treatments could be long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA or LAMA/LABA dual therapy, or a multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT; LAMA/LABA/ICS). Patients were required to have 12 months of available medical history prior to, and after, the index date. Results: In total, 25,350 eligible patients were identified, of these 8282 (mean age: 70.9 years; 51.5% male) persisted with their newly prescribed inhaled therapy for ≥12 months and were included in the analysis. In the 12 months prior to index, 54% of patients had moderate or severe dyspnea (Medical Research Council score ≥3). The most common therapy initiated at index was MITT (42%), followed by ICS/LABA dual therapy (31.2%). The proportion of patients with moderate or severe dyspnea in the post-index period ranged from 29.0% of patients receiving ICS to 64.2% of patients receiving MITT. In the post-index period, 48.1% of patients experienced ≥1 exacerbation and 54.9% had ≥5 general practitioner visits. Conclusion: Many of the patients with COPD in our study continued to experience symptoms and exacerbations, despite persisting on the same treatment for ≥12 months. This suggests that some patients may benefit from treatment modification in accordance with guideline recommendations.

Validity and interpretation of spirometric recordings to diagnose COPD in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of COPD is dependent upon clinical judgment and confirmation of the presence of airflow obstruction using spirometry. Spirometry is now routinely available; however, spirometry incorrectly performed or interpreted can lead to misdiagnosis. We aimed to determine whether spirometry undertaken in primary care for patients suspected to have COPD was of sufficient quality and whether their spirometry was correctly interpreted. METHODS: Two chest physicians re-read all spirometric readings for both quality of the procedure and interpretation, received as a part of COPD validation studies using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). We then used logistic regression to investigate predictors of correct interpretation. RESULTS: Spirometry traces were obtained for 306 patients, of which 221 (72.2%) were conducted in primary care. Of those conducted in primary care, 98.6% (n=218) of spirometry traces were of adequate quality. Of those traces that were of adequate quality and conducted in primary care, and in whom a general practitioner (GP) diagnosis of COPD had been made, 72.5% (n=218) were consistent with obstruction. Historical records for asthma diagnosis significantly decreased odds of correct interpretation. CONCLUSION: The quality of the spirometry procedure undertaken in primary care is high. However, this was not reflected in the quality of interpretation, suggesting an unmet training in primary care. The quality of the spirometry procedure as demonstrated by spirometric tracings provides a re-assurance for the use of spirometric values available in the electronic health care record databases for research purposes.