Sub-Optimal Disease Control and Low Blood Eosinophil Testing Frequency in Chinese Adult Patients with Asthma Receiving GINA Step 4/5 Treatment: A Real-World Study.

Purpose: To inform effective management strategies for severe asthma in China, this study aimed to comprehensively characterize clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, disease control status, and healthcare resource utilization among patients on GINA Step 4/5 therapies by analyzing data from the Adelphi Asthma Disease Specific Program conducted in China. Patients and methods: All information was retrieved from medical records or collected from physicians and patients on the survey date (August-December 2018); no follow-up was conducted. Results were summarized descriptively for patients on GINA Step 4/5 therapies, who were pooled from a consecutive sample (comprising three or more consecutive patients with physician-diagnosed asthma from each participating physician) and an oversample (comprising the next two patients with physician-perceived severe asthma from each participating physician). Results: Of the included patients (n=754), 51.5% had ever had a blood eosinophil measurement taken, 22.1% had available records for their most recent blood eosinophil measurements (68.9% of them had an elevated level ≥150 cells/µL), 39.9% had ever been tested for specific immunoglobulin E or radioallergosorbent, and 8.0% were prescribed maintenance oral corticosteroids. Asthma was not well controlled in 69.2% of patients. In the prior year, 27.1% experienced at least one severe exacerbation and 22.8% experienced at least one hospitalization (emergency visit or overnight stay) due to asthma. Conclusion: In Chinese patients with asthma on GINA Step 4/5 therapies, biomarker testing was underutilized, asthma was not well controlled, and severe exacerbations were not infrequent. These findings highlight the urgent need for optimized asthma management for patients on GINA Step 4/5 therapies in China.

Disease Burden, Treatment Patterns and Asthma Control in Adult Patients with Asthma in China: A Real-World Study.

Purpose: To inform better asthma management in China, this study aimed to comprehensively investigate clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, asthma control status, exacerbations, and humanistic burden among adult patients seeking hospital-based asthma care by analyzing data from Adelphi Asthma Disease Specific Program conducted in China. Patients and Methods: All information was collected on survey date (August-December 2018) from medical records, physicians, or patients, without follow-up being conducted. Results are summarized descriptively for the overall population as well as subgroups defined by GINA 2018 treatment step. Results: Of the included 765 patients, 46.0%, 40.4%, and 29.2% had undergone lung function, blood eosinophil count, and specific immunoglobulin E/radioallergosorbent testing, and 17.2%, 24.1%, and 58.7% were managed at GINA Steps 1-2, 3, and 4-5, respectively. Asthma was not well controlled in 57.3% of patients based on definitions adapted from the ERS/ATS and 10.7% of patients had experienced ≥1 severe exacerbation in the preceding year. According to patient self-reporting (n=603), the mean (SD) was 0.9 (0.1) for utility on EQ-5D-3L and was 7.8% (10.4%), 36.9% (20.0%), 40.8% (22.2%), and 37.9% (22.3%) for absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment, respectively, on WPAI. Both asthma control and humanistic burden worsened with progressive GINA treatment steps. Conclusion: In patients seeking hospital-based asthma care in China, lung function and biomarker tests were underutilized, impairment in productivity and quality of life was observed, and more than half did not achieve well-controlled asthma despite approximately 60% being managed at GINA treatment Steps 4-5. These findings highlight the urgent need for optimizing asthma management in China.

Development and Evaluation of Machine Learning in Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detecting Metastases in Patients With Lung or Colon Cancer: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study.

OBJECTIVES: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) has been demonstrated to be efficient and cost-effective for cancer staging. The study aim was to develop a machine learning (ML) algorithm to improve radiologists' sensitivity and specificity for metastasis detection and reduce reading times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 438 prospectively collected WB-MRI scans from multicenter Streamline studies (February 2013-September 2016) was undertaken. Disease sites were manually labeled using Streamline reference standard. Whole-body MRI scans were randomly allocated to training and testing sets. A model for malignant lesion detection was developed based on convolutional neural networks and a 2-stage training strategy. The final algorithm generated lesion probability heat maps. Using a concurrent reader paradigm, 25 radiologists (18 experienced, 7 inexperienced in WB-/MRI) were randomly allocated WB-MRI scans with or without ML support to detect malignant lesions over 2 or 3 reading rounds. Reads were undertaken in the setting of a diagnostic radiology reading room between November 2019 and March 2020. Reading times were recorded by a scribe. Prespecified analysis included sensitivity, specificity, interobserver agreement, and reading time of radiology readers to detect metastases with or without ML support. Reader performance for detection of the primary tumor was also evaluated. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-three evaluable WB-MRI scans were allocated to algorithm training (245) or radiology testing (50 patients with metastases, from primary 117 colon [n = 117] or lung [n = 71] cancer). Among a total 562 reads by experienced radiologists over 2 reading rounds, per-patient specificity was 86.2% (ML) and 87.7% (non-ML) (-1.5% difference; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.4%, 3.5%; P = 0.39). Sensitivity was 66.0% (ML) and 70.0% (non-ML) (-4.0% difference; 95% CI, -13.5%, 5.5%; P = 0.344). Among 161 reads by inexperienced readers, per-patient specificity in both groups was 76.3% (0% difference; 95% CI, -15.0%, 15.0%; P = 0.613), with sensitivity of 73.3% (ML) and 60.0% (non-ML) (13.3% difference; 95% CI, -7.9%, 34.5%; P = 0.313). Per-site specificity was high (>90%) for all metastatic sites and experience levels. There was high sensitivity for the detection of primary tumors (lung cancer detection rate of 98.6% with and without ML [0.0% difference; 95% CI, -2.0%, 2.0%; P = 1.00], colon cancer detection rate of 89.0% with and 90.6% without ML [-1.7% difference; 95% CI, -5.6%, 2.2%; P = 0.65]). When combining all reads from rounds 1 and 2, reading times fell by 6.2% (95% CI, -22.8%, 10.0%) when using ML. Round 2 read-times fell by 32% (95% CI, 20.8%, 42.8%) compared with round 1. Within round 2, there was a significant decrease in read-time when using ML support, estimated as 286 seconds (or 11%) quicker ( P = 0.0281), using regression analysis to account for reader experience, read round, and tumor type. Interobserver variance suggests moderate agreement, Cohen κ = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47, 0.81 (with ML), and Cohen κ = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47, 0.81 (without ML). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a significant difference in per-patient sensitivity and specificity for detecting metastases or the primary tumor using concurrent ML compared with standard WB-MRI. Radiology read-times with or without ML support fell for round 2 reads compared with round 1, suggesting that readers familiarized themselves with the study reading method. During the second reading round, there was a significant reduction in reading time when using ML support.

Treatment Patterns for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in the United States: Results from an Observational Cross-Sectional Physician and Patient Survey.

Purpose: There is a high prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States (US). Although guidelines are available for the treatment of COPD, evidence suggests that management of COPD in clinical practice is not always aligned with this guidance. This study aimed to further understand the current use of COPD maintenance medication in the US. Patients and Methods: This study was an analysis of data from the Adelphi Respiratory Disease Specific Programme (DSP™) 2019. Point-in-time data were collected from participating US physicians and their COPD patients. Physicians were either primary care physicians (PCPs) or pulmonologists, with a minimum workload of ≥3 COPD patients per month. Patients were aged ≥18 years with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of COPD. Results: In total, 171 physicians completed the survey (92 PCPs and 79 pulmonologists). Mean patient age was 66.4 years, 45% were female, with moderate COPD in 49.4% of patients and severe/very severe in 19.3%. Pulmonologists more frequently prescribed dual bronchodilation and triple therapy than PCPs, whereas inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist was more frequently prescribed by PCPs than pulmonologists. For both physician types, the most common reason for prescribing their patients' current treatment was 24-hour symptom relief. The majority of PCPs (70.1%) and pulmonologists (71.9%) reported referring to COPD guidelines when making treatment decisions. Conclusion: Prescribing patterns for COPD patients were found to differ between PCPs and pulmonologists. Improved physician understanding of how to tailor treatment for each patient, based on current symptoms and exacerbation risk, could help optimize patient care in COPD.