Asthma-related emergency admissions and associated healthcare resource use in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of real-world research assessing asthma management following asthma-related emergency department (ED) discharges. The objective of this study was to characterise follow-up care, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and medical costs following ED admissions in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on adults with asthma using longitudinal population-based administrative data from Alberta Health Services. Adult patients with asthma and ≥1 ED admission from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2020 were included. ED admissions, outpatient visits, hospitalisations and asthma-specific medication use were measured in the 30 days before and up to 90 days after each asthma-related ED admission. Mean medical costs attributable to each type of HCRU were summarised. All outcomes were stratified by patient baseline disease severity. RESULTS: Among 128 063 patients incurring a total of 20 142 asthma-related ED visits, a substantial rate of ED readmission was observed, with 10% resulting in readmissions within 7 days and 35% within 90 days. Rates increased with baseline asthma severity. Despite recommendations for patients to be followed up with an outpatient visit within 2-7 days of ED discharge, only 6% were followed up within 7 days. The mean total medical cost per patient was $C8143 in the 30 days prior to and $C5407 in the 30 days after an ED admission. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations regarding follow-up care for patients after asthma-related ED admissions, there are still low rates of outpatient follow-up visits and high ED readmission rates. New or improved multidimensional approaches must be integrated into follow-up care to optimise asthma control and prevent readmissions.

SABA use as an indicator for asthma exacerbation risk: an observational cohort study (SABINA Canada).

Background: Patients with asthma use short-acting ß-agonists (SABA) to relieve symptoms but SABA alone does not treat underlying inflammation. Thus, over-reliance on SABA may result in poor asthma control and negative health outcomes. Objective: To describe use of SABA and characterise the relationship with severe exacerbations in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia (NS) and Alberta (AB). Methods: In this longitudinal Canadian SABA In Asthma (SABINA) study, patients with an asthma diagnosis were identified between 2016 and 2020 within two provincial administrative datasets (Health Data Nova Scotia and Alberta Health Services). All patients were followed for ≥24 months, with the first 12 months used to measure baseline asthma severity. Medication use and the relationship of SABA overuse (three or more canisters per year) with severe asthma exacerbations were characterised descriptively and via regression analysis. Results: A total of 115 478 patients were identified (NS: n=8034; AB: n=107 444). SABA overuse was substantial across both provinces (NS: 39.4%; AB: 28.0%) and across all baseline disease severity categories. Patients in NS with SABA overuse had a mean±sd annual rate of 0.46±1.11 exacerbations, compared to 0.30±1.36 for those using fewer than three canisters of SABA. Patients in AB had mean±sd exacerbation rates of 0.31±0.86 and 0.17±0.62, respectively. The adjusted risk of severe exacerbation was associated with SABA overuse (NS: incidence ratio rate 1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56; AB: incidence ratio rate 1.32, 95% CI 1.27-1.38). Conclusion: This study supports recent updates to Canadian Thoracic Society and Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines for asthma care. SABA overuse is associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations and can be used to identify patients at a higher risk for severe exacerbations.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends the use of as-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as a preferred controller therapy for patients with mild asthma. These recommendations were based, in part, on evidence from the SYGMA 1 and 2 studies of as-needed budesonide-formoterol. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) in patients with mild asthma. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was designed that included three possible health states (non-exacerbation, severe exacerbation, and death) to compare as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200-6 µg to twice-daily budesonide 200 µg maintenance therapy (low-dose ICS) plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SABA). The deterministic base-case analysis used severe exacerbation, adverse event (AE), and healthcare resource use data from SYGMA 2, and was conducted from a Canadian public payer perspective with a 50-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. Moderate exacerbation was modelled on data from SYGMA 1 in sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 quality of life data. All-cause- and asthma-related mortality rates and costs (reported in 2019 Canadian dollars) were based on published data, using Canada-specific values where available. One-way deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and eight scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: As-needed budesonide-formoterol was the dominant treatment option in the base-case analysis, providing incremental cost savings of $9882 per patient and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.002 versus low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA over a 50-year time horizon. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY ($100,000/QALY), as-needed budesonide-formoterol had a 94% (95%) probability of being cost-effective compared with maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA. Cost-saving was mostly driven by lower overall medication and AE-related costs. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained the dominant treatment in sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: As-needed budesonide-formoterol is a cost-saving option for the treatment of mild asthma from the perspective of the Canadian public payer compared with low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA.

Usage Patterns of Short-Acting ß2-Agonists and Inhaled Corticosteroids in Asthma: A Targeted Literature Review.

Despite the availability of effective asthma treatments, some patients are poorly controlled because of overreliance on short-acting ß2-agonists (SABAs) and underuse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). To identify patient characteristics and outcomes associated with SABA overreliance and ICS underuse, we conducted a targeted literature review of the quantitative evidence on asthma medication use. Articles evaluating SABA and/or ICS use in patients with asthma (aged ≥12 years), published between January 2012 and March 2018, were identified using MEDLINE and EMBASE. We observed that studies classified SABA usage as "overuse," "high use," "excess use," "extreme overuse," "suboptimal use," and "inappropriate use." Multiple thresholds were used to define overuse of SABA (≥3 to ≥12 canisters/y). SABA overreliance was prevalent, with approximately 20% of adults using 3 or more canisters per year (≥12 inhalations/wk). Similarly, inappropriate ICS use, classified as "suboptimal," "high use," "underuse," and "unlicensed use," was defined by varying thresholds. Specific patient populations, such as older adults, smokers, and patients with low income, were more susceptible to SABA overreliance and ICS underuse. Overreliance on SABAs was associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations, asthma-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and asthma-related costs. These findings emphasize the prevalence and related burden of SABA overreliance at the potential expense of appropriate ICS use.

Understanding Patient Perspectives on Medication Adherence in Asthma: A Targeted Review of Qualitative Studies.

Adherence to asthma medications is generally poor and undermines clinical outcomes. Poor adherence is characterized by underuse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), often accompanied by over-reliance on short-acting ß2-agonists for symptom relief. To identify drivers of poor medication adherence, a targeted literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles presenting qualitative data evaluating medication adherence in asthma patients (≥12 years old), published from January 1, 2012 to February 26, 2018. A thematic analysis of 21 relevant articles revealed several key themes driving poor medication adherence, including asthma-specific drivers and more general drivers common to chronic diseases. Due to the episodic nature of asthma, many patients felt that their daily life was not substantially impacted; consequently, many harbored doubts about the accuracy of their diagnosis or were in denial about the impact of the disease and, in turn, the need for long-term treatment. This was further compounded by poor patient-physician communication, which contributed to suboptimal knowledge about asthma medications, including lack of understanding of the distinction between maintenance and reliever inhalers, suboptimal inhaler technique, and concerns about ICS side effects. Other drivers of poor medication adherence included the high cost of asthma medication, general forgetfulness, and embarrassment over inhaler use in public. Overall, patients' perceived lack of need for asthma medications and medication concerns, in part due to suboptimal knowledge and poor patient-physician communication, emerged as key drivers of poor medication adherence. Optimal asthma care and management should therefore target these barriers through effective patient- and physician-centered strategies.

The Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Investigator Collaborative (AR-CIC): verification of nasal allergen challenge procedures in a study utilizing an investigational immunotherapy for cat allergy.

BACKGROUND: The Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Investigator Collaborative (AR-CIC) is a network of experienced Allergic Rhinitis (AR) researchers developing better research tools based on the nasal allergen challenge (NAC). A key objective of such is the ability to detect efficacy in a small population. AR-CIC sought to test its NAC protocol as a secondary objective in two small mechanistic research trials of a novel form of immunotherapy [Cat Peptide Antigen Desensitisation (Cat-PAD)] for which efficacy had previously been demonstrated. The primary objective (not presented here) was to identify potential biomarkers of efficacy for peptide immunotherapy, and this provided an ideal opportunity to corroborate the NAC protocol. We aim to clinically validate the AR-CIC NAC methodology in a pooled analysis of secondary endpoints measured in two open label mechanistic studies of cat allergic participants treated with Cat-PAD. METHODS: Cat allergic AR sufferers with ongoing cat exposure were included. Participants had to demonstrate a total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of at least 8 (max 12) and/or achieve a reduction in peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) of ≥ 50% during a screening titrated NAC. Eligible participants then underwent a baseline NAC visit with the allergen dose that produced a positive challenge at screening, followed by four monthly injections of 6 nmol Cat-PAD. A follow up NAC visit documented changes in nasal response 1 month following the completion of treatment. RESULTS: Nineteen subjects completed the study protocol in the two studies combined. Four injections of Cat-PAD resulted in a significant reduction in TNSS responses generated via NAC following allergen challenge (15 min p < 0.05, 30 min p < 0.05, 1 h p < 0.01, 2 h p < 0.05). There was modest correlation between symptom scores and PNIF measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the validity of the AR-CIC's optimised NAC protocol for conducting research of the potential efficacy of novel therapeutics in multi-centre studies.Trial registration Both studies reported herein were registered clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01383590 and NCT01383603).

Repeatability of nasal allergen challenge results: Further validation of the allergic rhinitis clinical investigator collaborative protocols.

BACKGROUND: Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) models have been used to study allergic rhinitis and new therapies. Symptoms and biological samples can be evaluated at time points after allergen exposure. OBJECTIVE: To verify protocol repeatability and adequate interval between allergen exposures. METHODS: Ten ragweed allergic participants were exposed to incrementally increasing dosages of ragweed allergen intranasally until they achieved a total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of 8 of 12 and a peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) of 50% reduction or more from baseline. Three weeks later, participants were challenged with a cumulative dose equal to the sum of all the allergen doses received at screening. TNSS and PNIF were recorded at regular intervals, including a 24-hour assessment. A subsequent visit was conducted after a further 3 weeks. Nasal secretion samples were collected for cytokine and eosinophil quantification. RESULTS: Nine participants completed all visits. TNSS and PNIF responses followed previous patterns, with an initial peak at 30 minutes followed by a gradual decline. Most participants reported similar patterns at both NAC visits, although some did not demonstrate the same phenotype at both visits. Some experienced a secondary symptom increase 24 hours after NAC. Eosinophil and cytokine sections followed a similar pattern at both NAC visits. CONCLUSION: NAC is an adequate method for modeling AR in humans, demonstrating appropriate repeatability of symptoms, nasal mucosal eosinophil, and cytokines. The 24-hour time point, previously not studied in our model, may be beneficial in evaluation of long-acting medications. This three-week interval NAC model will be beneficial for studies in which before and after treatment comparisons are desired.

Clinical validation of controlled exposure to birch pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU).

BACKGROUND: The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) in Kingston, Ontario, Canada is a controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) that has been previously clinically validated for the use of ragweed and grass pollen in clinical studies. In this study we aim to validate the use of birch pollen to challenge allergic participants. METHODS: A total of 59 volunteers were screened and 38 birch allergic participants and ten non-allergics completed the study, outside of tree pollen season. Participants had to have a minimum of 2-year history of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis during the typical tree pollen season and have a positive skin prick test to birch allergen ≥5 mm from the control. Qualified participants were exposed to birch (Betula pendula) pollen for 4 h in the EEU and recorded their symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itch which comprised the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), as well as itchy/watery eyes, red/burning eyes and itching of ears/palate/throat which along with the TNSS comprised the total rhinoconjunctival symptom score (TRSS) along with Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) at baseline and at 30 min intervals for the duration of exposure, then hourly for up to 12 h from the start of exposure. RESULTS: Allergic participants reported a gradual rise in TNSS and TRSS, reaching a mean and standard error of the mean of 7.08 ± 0.45 and 11.58 ± 0.93 respectively by 180 min from the start of exposure. Symptoms gradually declined to near baseline values following departing from the unit, reaching 1.9 and 2.7 by 450 min. Allergic participants reported significantly higher TNSS than non-allergics starting from 30 min (p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections), maintaining maximum significance from 60 to 300 min (p < 0.0001) and losing significance by 420 min. TRSS and PNIF followed similar trends as those seen with TNSS. Participants were phenotyped using previously published definitions using the TNSS into Early Phase Responders (EPR, 57.8 %), protracted EPR (pEPR, 39.5 %), and Dual Phase Responders (DPR, 2.7 %). CONCLUSIONS: The EEU can competently challenge birch allergic participants and achieve statistically significant changes in symptoms and nasal airflow, while such changes are not reported in non-allergic controls. Trial registration NCT02351830 clinicaltrials.gov.

Controlled Allergen Challenge Facilities and Their Unique Contributions to Allergic Rhinitis Research.

The aim of this study is to review advances in basic and clinical allergic rhinitis (AR) research over the past decade that have been conducted using controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) models of allergen challenge. Databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for articles employing an ambient pollen exposure in a controlled facility to study AR, published between 2004 and the present date, using the terms as follows: CACF, Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC), Fraunhofer Institute Environmental Challenge Chamber, Atlanta Allergen Exposure Unit, Biogenics Research Chamber, Allergen BioCube, Chiba and Osaka Environmental Challenge Chamber, exposure unit, challenge chamber, or environmental exposure chamber. Articles were then selected for relevance to the goals of the present review, including important contributions toward clinical and/or basic science allergy research. CACFs offer sensitive, specific, and reproducible methodology for allergen challenge. They have been employed since the 1980s and offer distinct advantages over traditional in-season multicentre trials when evaluating new treatments for AR. They have provided clinically applicable efficacy and pharmacologic information about important allergy medications, including antihistamines, decongestants, antileukotrienes, immunotherapies, and nasal steroids. CACF models have also contributed to basic science and novel/experimental therapy research. To date, no direct studies have been conducted comparing outcomes from one CACF to another. Over the past decade, CACF models have played an essential role in investigating the pathophysiology of AR and evaluating new therapies. The future opportunities for this model continue to expand.

The Allergic Rhinitis - Clinical Investigator Collaborative (AR-CIC): nasal allergen challenge protocol optimization for studying AR pathophysiology and evaluating novel therapies.

BACKGROUND: The Nasal Allergen Challenge (NAC) model allows the study of Allergic Rhinitis (AR) pathophysiology and the proof of concept of novel therapies. The Allergic Rhinitis - Clinical Investigator Collaborative (AR-CIC) aims to optimize the protocol, ensuring reliability and repeatability of symptoms to better evaluate the therapies under investigation. METHODS: 20 AR participants were challenged, with 4-fold increments of their respective allergens every 15 minutes, to determine the qualifying allergen concentration (QAC) at which the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) of ≥10/12 OR a Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) reduction of ≥50% from baseline was achieved. At the NAC visit, the QAC was used in a single challenge and TNSS and PNIF were recorded at baseline, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, and hourly up to 12 hours. 10 additional ragweed allergic participants were qualified at TNSS of ≥8/12 AND ≥50% PNIF reduction; the Cumulative Allergen Challenge (CAC) of all incremental doses was used during the NAC visit. 4 non-allergic participants were challenged with the highest allergen concentration. RESULTS: In the QAC study, a group qualified by only meeting PNIF criteria achieved lower TNSS than those achieving either TNSS criteria or PNIIF+TNSS (p<0.01). During the NAC visit, participants in both studies reached their peak symptoms at 15minutes followed by a gradual decline, significantly different from non-allergic participants. The "PNIF only" group experienced significantly lower TNSS than the other groups during NAC visit. QAC and CAC participants did not reach the same peak TNSS during NAC that was achieved at screening. QAC participants qualifying based on TNSS or TNSS+PNIF managed to maintain PNIF scores. CONCLUSIONS: Participants experienced reliable symptoms of AR in both studies, using both TNSS and PNIF reduction as part of the qualifying criteria proved better for qualifying participants at screening. Phenotyping based on pattern of symptoms experienced is possible and allows the study of AR pathophysiology and can be applied in evaluation of efficacy of a novel medication. The AR-CIC aims to continue to improve the model and employ it in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.