Genetic and T2 biomarkers linked to the efficacy of HDM sublingual immunotherapy in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity to house dust mite (HDM) allergens is a common cause of allergic asthma symptoms and can be effectively treated with allergy immunotherapy (AIT). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether genetic and type 2 (T2) inflammatory biomarkers correlate with disease severity in subjects with allergic asthma, and whether this can be modified by AIT. METHODS: MITRA (NCT01433523) was a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets in adults with HDM allergic asthma. Post hoc analyses of the study population (N=742) evaluated associations between T2 inflammatory (blood eosinophils, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), total IgE and tryptase) and genetic (single-nucleotide polymorphisms, SNP) biomarkers (n=582) for the primary study endpoint (time to first moderate/severe asthma exacerbation). SNP associations were verified in HDM-positive subgroup from an independent 3-year Severe Asthma Research Programme (SARP3) subject cohort. RESULTS: An increased asthma exacerbation risk in subjects homozygous for SNP rs7216389 (chromosomal locus 17q12-21) was reduced (p=0.037) by treatment with HDM SLIT (HR=0.37 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.64), p<0.001). The associations between exacerbation risk and 17q12-21 SNPs were replicated in the SARP3 HDM-positive subgroup. High levels of T2 biomarkers were associated with increased risk of asthma exacerbations in the placebo group. HDM SLIT-tablet treatment reduced this risk (blood eosinophils: HR=0.50 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.85); ECP: HR=0.45 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.87); tryptase: HR=0.45 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.80)). The treatment effect was higher (p=0.006) for subjects with a higher number of elevated T2 biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: HDM SLIT-tablet AIT is efficacious in HDM-sensitised asthma subjects with a genetic asthma predisposition and/or an underlying T2 endotype. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01433523.

Efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and persistent airflow obstruction.

BACKGROUND: The 52-week, phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST study (NCT02414854) in patients aged above or equal to 12 years with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab 200 mg and 300 mg every 2 weeks vs matched placebo. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether dupilumab improves clinical outcomes in QUEST patients with persistent airflow obstruction (PAO) defined as post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio less than 0.7 at baseline. METHODS: End points were annualized rate of severe exacerbations, pre and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second over time, proportion achieving reversal of PAO, and quality of life. Efficacy was evaluated in patients with or without PAO at baseline in subpopulations with eosinophils ≥ 150 cells/µL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 25 ppb or eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL and FeNO ≥ 25 ppb. RESULTS: Of 1902 patients enrolled in QUEST, 1039 (55%) had PAO at baseline. Dupilumab vs placebo rapidly and significantly improved lung function in patients with PAO and elevated type 2 inflammatory biomarkers at baseline. Dupilumab improved probability of reversing airflow obstruction (hazard ratio vs placebo 1.616 [95% confidence interval, 1.272-2.052] and 1.813 [1.291-2.546]; both P < .001) and significantly reduced severe exacerbations by 69% (relative risk, 0.411; 95% confidence interval [0.327-0.516]; P < .0001) and by 75% (0.252 [0.178-0.356]; P < .0001) in patients with PAO with eosinophils ≥ 150 cells/µL or FeNO ≥ 25 ppb and eosinophils ≥ 300 cells/µL and FeNO ≥ 25 ppb, respectively. Similar results were observed in patient subgroups without PAO. CONCLUSION: In patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, treatment with dupilumab facilitates reversal of PAO status and improves clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02414854.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ⩾60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2-agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Improving lung health in low-income and middle-income countries: from challenges to solutions.

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionately high burden of the global morbidity and mortality caused by chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, and post-tuberculosis lung disease. CRDs are strongly associated with poverty, infectious diseases, and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and contribute to complex multi-morbidity, with major consequences for the lives and livelihoods of those affected. The relevance of CRDs to health and socioeconomic wellbeing is expected to increase in the decades ahead, as life expectancies rise and the competing risks of early childhood mortality and infectious diseases plateau. As such, the World Health Organization has identified the prevention and control of NCDs as an urgent development issue and essential to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. In this Review, we focus on CRDs in LMICs. We discuss the early life origins of CRDs; challenges in their prevention, diagnosis, and management in LMICs; and pathways to solutions to achieve true universal health coverage.

Asthma management in low and middle income countries: case for change.

Asthma is the most common noncommunicable disease in children, and among the most common in adults. The great majority of people with asthma live in low and middle income countries (LMICs), which have disproportionately high asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Essential inhaled medications, particularly those containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), are often unavailable or unaffordable, and this explains much of the global burden of preventable asthma morbidity and mortality. Guidelines developed for LMICs are generally based on the outdated assumption that patients with asthma symptoms <1-3 times per week do not need (or benefit from) ICS. Even when ICS are prescribed, many patients manage their asthma with oral or inhaled short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA) alone, owing to issues of availability and affordability. A single ICS-formoterol inhaler-based approach to asthma management for all severities of asthma, from mild to severe, starting at diagnosis, might overcome SABA overuse/over-reliance and reduce the burden of symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, ICS-formoterol inhalers are currently very poorly available or unaffordable in LMICs. There is a pressing need for pragmatic clinical trial evidence of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this and other strategies to improve asthma care in these countries. The global health inequality in asthma care that deprives so many children, adolescents and adults of healthy lives and puts them at increased risk of death, despite the availability of highly effective therapeutic approaches, is unacceptable. A World Health Assembly Resolution on universal access to affordable and effective asthma care is needed to focus attention and investment on addressing this need.

Short-acting ß2-agonist prescriptions are associated with poor clinical outcomes of asthma: the multi-country, cross-sectional SABINA III study.

BACKGROUND: To gain a global perspective on short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions and associated asthma-related clinical outcomes in patients with asthma, we assessed primary health data across 24 countries in five continents. METHODS: SABINA III was a cross-sectional study that employed electronic case report forms at a study visit (in primary or specialist care) to record prescribed medication(s), over-the-counter (OTC) SABA purchases and clinical outcomes in asthma patients (≥12 years old) during the past 12 months. In patients with ≥1 SABA prescriptions, associations of SABA with asthma symptom control and severe exacerbations were analysed using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 8351 patients recruited (n=6872, specialists; n=1440, primary care), 76.5% had moderate-to-severe asthma and 45.4% experienced ≥1 severe exacerbations in the past 12 months. 38% of patients were prescribed ≥3 SABA canisters; 18.0% purchased OTC SABA, of whom 76.8% also received SABA prescriptions. Prescriptions of 3-5, 6-9, 10-12 and ≥13 SABA canisters (versus 1-2) were associated with increasingly lower odds of controlled or partly controlled asthma (adjusted OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.53-0.78), 0.49 (95% CI 0.39-0.61), 0.42 (95% CI 0.34-0.51) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.25-0.45), respectively; n=4597) and higher severe exacerbation rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.40 (95% CI 1.24-1.58), 1.52 (95% CI 1.33-1.74), 1.78 (95% CI 1.57-2.02) and 1.92 (95% CI 1.61-2.29), respectively; n=4612). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates an association between high SABA prescriptions and poor clinical outcomes across a broad range of countries, healthcare settings and asthma severities, providing support for initiatives to improve asthma morbidity by reducing SABA overreliance.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2 -agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2 -agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Prevalence and Population-Attributable Risk for Chronic Airflow Obstruction in a Large Multinational Study.

Rationale: The Global Burden of Disease program identified smoking and ambient and household air pollution as the main drivers of death and disability from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: To estimate the attributable risk of chronic airflow obstruction (CAO), a quantifiable characteristic of COPD, due to several risk factors. Methods: The Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study is a cross-sectional study of adults, aged ≥40, in a globally distributed sample of 41 urban and rural sites. Based on data from 28,459 participants, we estimated the prevalence of CAO, defined as a postbronchodilator FEV1-to-FVC ratio less than the lower limit of normal, and the relative risks associated with different risk factors. Local relative risks were estimated using a Bayesian hierarchical model borrowing information from across sites. From these relative risks and the prevalence of risk factors, we estimated local population attributable risks. Measurements and Main Results: The mean prevalence of CAO was 11.2% in men and 8.6% in women. The mean population attributable risk for smoking was 5.1% in men and 2.2% in women. The next most influential risk factors were poor education levels, working in a dusty job for ≥10 years, low body mass index, and a history of tuberculosis. The risk of CAO attributable to the different risk factors varied across sites. Conclusions: Although smoking remains the most important risk factor for CAO, in some areas, poor education, low body mass index, and passive smoking are of greater importance. Dusty occupations and tuberculosis are important risk factors at some sites.

Combined Analysis of Asthma Safety Trials of Long-Acting ß2-Agonists.

BACKGROUND: Safety concerns regarding long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) in asthma management were initially identified in a large postmarketing trial in which the risk of death was increased. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated that the four companies marketing LABAs for asthma perform prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing the safety of combination therapy with a LABA plus an inhaled glucocorticoid with that of an inhaled glucocorticoid alone in adolescents (12 to 17 years of age) and adults. In conjunction with the FDA, the manufacturers harmonized their trial methods to allow an independent joint oversight committee to provide a final combined analysis of the four trials. METHODS: As members of the joint oversight committee, we performed a combined analysis of the four trials comparing an inhaled glucocorticoid plus a LABA (combination therapy) with an inhaled glucocorticoid alone. The primary outcome was a composite of asthma-related intubation or death. Post hoc secondary outcomes included serious asthma-related events and asthma exacerbations. RESULTS: Among the 36,010 patients in the intention-to-treat study, there were three asthma-related intubations (two in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group and one in the combination-therapy group) and two asthma-related deaths (both in the combination-therapy group) in 4 patients. In the secondary analysis of serious asthma-related events (a composite of hospitalization, intubation, or death), 108 of 18,006 patients (0.60%) in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group and 119 of 18,004 patients (0.66%) in the combination-therapy group had at least one composite event (relative risk in the combination-therapy group, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.43; P=0.55); 2100 patients in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group (11.7%) and 1768 in the combination-therapy group (9.8%) had at least one asthma exacerbation (relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.89; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with a LABA plus an inhaled glucocorticoid did not result in a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than treatment with an inhaled glucocorticoid alone but resulted in significantly fewer asthma exacerbations.

As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol versus Maintenance Budesonide in Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mild asthma often rely on inhaled short-acting ß2-agonists for symptom relief and have poor adherence to maintenance therapy. Another approach might be for patients to receive a fast-acting reliever plus an inhaled glucocorticoid component on an as-needed basis to address symptoms and exacerbation risk. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, double-blind, multicenter trial involving patients 12 years of age or older who had mild asthma and were eligible for treatment with regular inhaled glucocorticoids. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol) used as needed or budesonide maintenance therapy with twice-daily budesonide (200 µg) plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed. The primary analysis compared budesonide-formoterol used as needed with budesonide maintenance therapy with regard to the annualized rate of severe exacerbations, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 1.2. Symptoms were assessed according to scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) on a scale from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (maximum impairment). RESULTS: A total of 4215 patients underwent randomization, and 4176 (2089 in the budesonide-formoterol group and 2087 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis set. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to budesonide maintenance therapy for severe exacerbations; the annualized rate of severe exacerbations was 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.13) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14), respectively (rate ratio, 0.97; upper one-sided 95% confidence limit, 1.16). The median daily metered dose of inhaled glucocorticoid was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group (66 µg) than in the budesonide maintenance group (267 µg). The time to the first exacerbation was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). The change in ACQ-5 score showed a difference of 0.11 units (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.15) in favor of budesonide maintenance therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to twice-daily budesonide with respect to the rate of severe asthma exacerbations during 52 weeks of treatment but was inferior in controlling symptoms. Patients in the budesonide-formoterol group had approximately one quarter of the inhaled glucocorticoid exposure of those in the budesonide maintenance group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224157 .).

Inhaled Combined Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed in Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild asthma, as-needed use of an inhaled glucocorticoid plus a fast-acting ß2-agonist may be an alternative to conventional treatment strategies. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, double-blind trial involving patients 12 years of age or older with mild asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: twice-daily placebo plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed (terbutaline group), twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol) used as needed (budesonide-formoterol group), or twice-daily budesonide (200 µg) plus terbutaline used as needed (budesonide maintenance group). The primary objective was to investigate the superiority of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to as-needed terbutaline with regard to electronically recorded weeks with well-controlled asthma. RESULTS: A total of 3849 patients underwent randomization, and 3836 (1277 in the terbutaline group, 1277 in the budesonide-formoterol group, and 1282 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis and safety data sets. With respect to the mean percentage of weeks with well-controlled asthma per patient, budesonide-formoterol was superior to terbutaline (34.4% vs. 31.1% of weeks; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.30; P=0.046) but inferior to budesonide maintenance therapy (34.4% and 44.4%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.73). The annual rate of severe exacerbations was 0.20 with terbutaline, 0.07 with budesonide-formoterol, and 0.09 with budesonide maintenance therapy; the rate ratio was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.49) for budesonide-formoterol versus terbutaline and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.16) for budesonide-formoterol versus budesonide maintenance therapy. The rate of adherence in the budesonide maintenance group was 78.9%. The median metered daily dose of inhaled glucocorticoid in the budesonide-formoterol group (57 µg) was 17% of the dose in the budesonide maintenance group (340 µg). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol provided superior asthma-symptom control to as-needed terbutaline, assessed according to electronically recorded weeks with well-controlled asthma, but was inferior to budesonide maintenance therapy. Exacerbation rates with the two budesonide-containing regimens were similar and were lower than the rate with terbutaline. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed resulted in substantially lower glucocorticoid exposure than budesonide maintenance therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02149199 .).

Chronic airflow obstruction and ambient particulate air pollution.

Smoking is the most well-established cause of chronic airflow obstruction (CAO) but particulate air pollution and poverty have also been implicated. We regressed sex-specific prevalence of CAO from 41 Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study sites against smoking prevalence from the same study, the gross national income per capita and the local annual mean level of ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) using negative binomial regression. The prevalence of CAO was not independently associated with PM2.5 but was strongly associated with smoking and was also associated with poverty. Strengthening tobacco control and improved understanding of the link between CAO and poverty should be prioritised.

Addressing the quality of paediatric primary care: health worker and caregiver perspectives from a process evaluation of PACK child, a health systems intervention in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: The WHO's Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) has resulted in progress in addressing infant and child mortality. However, unmet needs of children continue to present a burden upon primary healthcare services. The capacity of services and quality of care offered require greater support to address these needs by extending and integrating curative and preventive care for the child with a long-term health condition and the child older than 5, not prioritised in IMCI. In response to these needs, the PACK Child intervention was developed and piloted in October 2017-February 2019 in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. We report health worker and caregiver perspectives of the existing paediatric primary care context as well as the extent to which PACK Child functions to address perceived problems within the current local healthcare system. METHODS: This process evaluation involved 52 individual interviews with caregivers, 10 focus group discussions with health workers, 3 individual interviews with trainers, and 31 training observations. Interviews and focus groups explored participants' experiences of paediatric primary care, perspectives of the PACK Child intervention, and tensions with implementation in each context. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse verbatim interview and discussion transcripts. RESULTS: Perspectives of caregivers and health workers suggest an institutionalised focus of paediatric primary care to treating children's symptoms as acute episodic conditions. Health workers' reports imply that this focus is perpetuated by interactions between contextual features such as, IMCI policy, documentation-driven consultations, overcrowded clinics and verticalised care. Whilst these contextual conditions constrained health workers' ability to translate skills developed within PACK Child training into practice, the intervention initiated expanded care of children 0-13 years and those with long-term health conditions, enhanced professional competence, improved teamwork and referrals, streamlined triaging, and facilitated probing for psychosocial risk. CONCLUSION: PACK Child appears to be catalysing paediatric primary care to address the broader needs of children, including long-term health conditions and the identification of psychosocial problems. However, to maximise this requires primary care to re-orientate from risk minimisation on the day of attendance towards a view of the child beyond the day of presentation at clinics.

What have we learnt about asthma control from trials of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever?

Despite improvements in medications, devices and understanding of the disease, about half of all asthma patients worldwide remain inadequately controlled, suggesting the need for a new approach to asthma management. Poor adherence to prescribed maintenance therapy and over-reliance on SABA reliever medication is a common cause of inadequate control. This article reviews published data from 6- to 12-month, double-blind, RCT and open-label real-world studies involving budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) and relevant comparator approaches to asthma management, and considers how these compare in achieving the treatment goals described in guidelines. The data confirm that patients with asthma treated with budesonide/formoterol MART achieved the same or better asthma symptom control compared with ICS/LABA plus SABA regimens at similar or higher ICS doses, with consistently lower rates of exacerbations and considerably lower annual requirement for oral corticosteroids. These findings have been confirmed across a range of severities of persistent asthma. With the MART approach, maintenance dosing ensures coverage for day-to-day control, and the use of a reliever with anti-inflammatory properties (budesonide/formoterol) provides extra doses of ICS as soon as symptoms prompt the use of reliever, resulting in a 40-50% reduction of exacerbations compared with an ICS-based treatment approach plus as-needed SABA as reliever. As-needed, budesonide/formoterol has also recently been shown to be more effective as a reliever in mild asthma than SABA alone, reducing exacerbations by up to 64% in the SYGMA studies.

Predicting Responders to Reslizumab after 16 Weeks of Treatment Using an Algorithm Derived from Clinical Studies of Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma.

RATIONALE: Reslizumab is a humanized anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody used as add-on maintenance treatment for patients with uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVES: To predict response and nonresponse to intravenous reslizumab at 52 weeks with an algorithm we developed based on clinical indicators from pivotal clinical trials. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years and older who met Global Initiative for Asthma 4 or 5 criteria and received intravenous reslizumab (n = 321) in two trials ( www.clinicaltrials.gov identifiers, NCT01287039 and NCT01285323) were selected as the data source. A mathematical model was constructed that was based on change from baseline to 16 weeks in Asthma Control Questionnaire and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores and FEV1, and number of clinical asthma exacerbations during the year before enrollment and in the first 16 weeks of treatment, and these measures were evaluated for their ability to predict the outcome at 52 weeks: responder, nonresponder, or indeterminate. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The algorithm predicted that 276 patients would be classified as responders; in 248 (89.9%), the prediction was correct. In comparison, 26 patients were predicted to be nonresponders; 50.0% of these predictions were correct. Nineteen patients were classified as indeterminate. The algorithm had 95.4-95.5% sensitivity and 40.6-54.1% specificity. Jackknife and cross-study validation confirmed the robustness of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm enabled prediction at 16 weeks of treatment of the response to intravenous reslizumab treatment at 52 weeks, but it was not suitable for predicting nonresponse. A positive score at 16 weeks should encourage continued treatment, and a negative score should prompt close monitoring to determine whether discontinuation is warranted.

Addressing the quality and scope of paediatric primary care in South Africa: evaluating contextual impacts of the introduction of the Practical Approach to Care Kit for children (PACK Child).

BACKGROUND: Despite significant reductions in mortality, preventable and treatable conditions remain leading causes of death and illness in children in South Africa. The PACK Child intervention, comprising clinical decision support tool (guide), training strategy and health systems strengthening components, was developed to expand on WHO's Integrated Management of Childhood Illness programme, extending care of children under 5 years to those aged 0-13 years, those with chronic conditions needing regular follow-up, integration of curative and preventive measures and routine care of the well child. In 2017-2018, PACK Child was piloted in 10 primary healthcare facilities in the Western Cape Province. Here we report findings from an investigation into the contextual features of South African primary care that shaped how clinicians delivered the PACK Child intervention within clinical consultations. METHODS: Process evaluation using linguistic ethnographic methodology which provides analytical tools for investigating human behaviour, and the shifting meaning of talk and text within context. Methods included semi-structured interviews, focus groups, ethnographic observation, audio-recorded consultations and documentary analysis. Analysis focused on how mapped contextual features structured clinician-caregiver interactions. RESULTS: Primary healthcare facilities demonstrated an institutionalised orientation to minimising risk upheld by provincial documentation, providing curative episodic care to children presenting with acute symptoms, and preventive care including immunisations, feeding and growth monitoring, all in children 5 years or younger. Children with chronic illnesses such as asthma rarely receive routine care. These contextual features constrained the ability of clinicians to use the PACK Child guide to facilitate diagnosis of long-term conditions, elicit and manage psychosocial issues, and navigate use of the guide alongside provincial documentation. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence that PACK Child is catalysing a transition to an approach that strikes a balance between assessing and minimising risk on the day of acute presentation and a larger remit of care for children over time. However, optimising success of the intervention requires reviewing priorities for paediatric care which will facilitate enhanced skills, knowledge and deployment of clinical staff to better address acute illnesses and long-term health conditions of children of all ages, as well as complex psychosocial issues surrounding the child.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Phase 4 (2018): Change management in allergic rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity using mobile technology.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) has evolved from a guideline by using the best approach to integrated care pathways using mobile technology in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma multimorbidity. The proposed next phase of ARIA is change management, with the aim of providing an active and healthy life to patients with rhinitis and to those with asthma multimorbidity across the lifecycle irrespective of their sex or socioeconomic status to reduce health and social inequities incurred by the disease. ARIA has followed the 8-step model of Kotter to assess and implement the effect of rhinitis on asthma multimorbidity and to propose multimorbid guidelines. A second change management strategy is proposed by ARIA Phase 4 to increase self-medication and shared decision making in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity. An innovation of ARIA has been the development and validation of information technology evidence-based tools (Mobile Airways Sentinel Network [MASK]) that can inform patient decisions on the basis of a self-care plan proposed by the health care professional.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA): 25†years later.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) was launched in 1993 under the auspices of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA, and the World Health Organization to produce a global strategy on asthma management and prevention. Now constituted as a non-profit entity, it continues to produce, on an annual basis, the most widely cited evidence-based report on the optimal management of asthma in both adults and children intended for global use. Although the GINA Report is often viewed and used as an asthma treatment guideline, it is designed to be a clinically oriented strategy document that supports the development of practice guidelines in different countries and regions.Other GINA products, including the report's pocket guides, teaching slide kits and implementation tools, are also offered free of charge for public use. The GINA Scientific Committee comprises recognised international experts from primary, secondary and tertiary centres of care who are actively involved in both the care of patients and research in asthma. The GINA Assembly is a forum for exchange of scientific information and discussions on initiatives to improve asthma care in various countries, focusing on implementation strategies. GINA plays a role in shaping research on the diagnosis and treatment of asthma and informs the development of point of care practice guides and decision support tools. GINA supports the objectives of raising awareness of asthma and improving access to therapy and quality of care for asthmatic patients, in addition to presenting and promoting continuously updated evidence-based treatment approaches for global use.

Global Initiative for Asthma 2016-derived asthma control with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol: A Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study reanalysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, the landmark Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study demonstrated that most patients can achieve asthma control through sustained treatment and that adding a long-acting ß2-adrenoreceptor agonist to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is more effective than ICS alone in this regard. Definitions of asthma control have since evolved, and the consequent implications for the GOAL study findings are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol and fluticasone propionate alone in achieving and maintaining asthma control, as derived from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2016 report. METHODS: In total, 3416 patients were stratified by prior medication (ICS-naive [stratum 1], low-dose ICS [stratum 2], or medium-dose ICS [stratum 3]) and randomized to receive fluticasone propionate and salmeterol or fluticasone propionate. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled or partly controlled asthma; secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma. Control was evaluated during the last 4 weeks of each dose titration. RESULTS: In all strata, more patients achieved well-controlled or partly controlled asthma with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol vs fluticasone propionate alone (stratum 1: 91% vs 85%; P = .003; stratum 2: 86% vs 82%; P = .07; and stratum 3: 76% vs 66%; P < .001), as well as patients with well-controlled asthma (stratum 1: 64% vs 56%; P = .005; stratum 2: 59% vs 41%; P < .001; and stratum 3: 40% vs 22%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A markedly higher proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma in each stratum achieved control according to GINA 2016 criteria compared with the original study criteria. The proportion of patients achieving control remained greater with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol than with fluticasone propionate alone.