How have we measured trial outcomes of asthma attack treatment? A systematic review.

Background: Asthma attacks are a common problem for people with asthma and are responsible for significant healthcare costs. There is interest in a precision medicine approach to treatment. However, the choice of trial outcome measures for asthma attack treatment is hampered by the absence of a consensus on suitability. We carried out a systematic review to understand the characteristics of outcome measures used in randomised controlled trials of asthma attack treatment. Have randomised controlled trials of asthma attack treatment measured outcomes that are useful to patients and healthcare providers? Methods: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022311479). We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for adults with asthma attacks, published in English between 1972 and 2022 on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. We recorded the outcome measures and study characteristics. Results: We identified 208 eligible randomised controlled trials from 35 countries. Trials ranged from 12 to 1109 participants, with a median of 60. The most common settings were the emergency department (n=165) and hospital admission (n=33). Only 128 studies had primary and secondary outcomes defined clearly. In those that did, 73% of primary outcomes measured change in lung function or other physiological parameters over a short period (usually <24 h). Patient-reported and healthcare utilisation outcomes were the primary outcome in 27%. Conclusions: Outcomes in randomised controlled trials of asthma attack treatment focus on short-term changes in lung function and may not capture patient-centred and economically important longer-term measures. More work is needed to investigate patient and other stakeholder preferences on core outcome sets.

Blood eosinophil-guided oral prednisolone for COPD exacerbations in primary care in the UK (STARR2): a non-inferiority, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic glucocorticoids are recommended for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations; however, there is increased harm associated with their use. We hypothesised that the use of eosinophil biomarker-directed oral prednisolone therapy at the time of an exacerbation of COPD was effective at reducing prednisolone use without affecting adverse outcomes. METHODS: The studying acute exacerbations and response (STARR2) study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 14 primary care practices in the UK. We included adults (aged ≥40 years), who were current or former smokers (with at least a 10 pack year smoking history) with a diagnosis of COPD, defined as a post-bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of less than 0·7 previously recorded by the primary care physician, and a history of at least one exacerbation in the previous 12 months requiring systemic corticosteroids with or without antibiotics. All study staff and participants were masked to study group allocation and to treatment allocation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to blood eosinophil-directed treatment (BET; to receive oral prednisolone 30 mg once daily if eosinophil count was high [≥2%] or placebo if eosinophil count was low [<2%]) or to standard care treatment (ST; to receive prednisolone 30 mg once daily irrespective of the point-of-care eosinophil result). Treatment was prescribed for 14 days and all patients also received antibiotics. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment failure, defined as any need for re-treatment with antibiotics or steroids, hospitalisation for any cause, or death, assessed at 30 days after exacerbation in the modified intention-to-treat population. Participants were eligible for re-randomisation at further exacerbations (with a maximum of four exacerbations per participant). A safety analysis was conducted on all randomly assigned participants. Although designed as a superiority trial, after identification of an error in the randomisation code before data lock the study converted to show non-inferiority. An upper margin of 1·105 for the 95% CI was defined as the non-inferiority margin. This study was registered with EudraCT, 2017-001586-24, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2017, and April 30, 2020, 308 participants were recruited from 14 general practices. 144 exacerbations (73 in the BET group and 71 in the ST group) from 93 participants (mean age 70 years [range 46-84] and mean percent predicted FEV1 60·9% [SD 19·4]; 52 [56%] male and 41 [44%] female; ethnicity data was not collected]) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. There were 14 (19%) treatment failures at 30 days post-exacerbation in the BET group and 23 (32%) in the ST group; we found a large non-significant estimated effect between BET and ST (RR 0·60 [95% CI 0·33-1·04]; p=0·070) in reducing treatment failures after a COPD exacerbation. The non-inferiority analysis supported that BET was non-inferior to ST. Frequency of adverse events were similar between the study groups; glycosuria (2/102 [2%] in BET group and 1/101 [1%] in the ST group) and hospital admission for COPD exacerbation (2/102 [2%] in BET group and 1/101 [1%] in the ST group) were the two most common adverse events in both groups. No deaths occurred in the study. INTERPRETATION: Blood eosinophil-directed prednisolone therapy at the time of an acute exacerbation of COPD is non-inferior to standard care and can be used to safely reduce systemic glucocorticoid use in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Prednisolone for COPD exacerbations: time for a rethink.

Prednisolone given universally for COPD exacerbations causes harm without any benefit. Patients deserve blood eosinophil-guided prednisolone treatment for COPD exacerbations. https://bit.ly/3pR2BSY.

Patients' acceptance of outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisation for COPD exacerbations: a CICERO Clinical Research Collaboration-European Lung Foundation online patient survey.

Background: The lack of standardised outcome assessments during hospitalisation and follow-up for acute COPD exacerbations has hampered scientific progress and clinical proficiency. The objective of the present study was to evaluate patients' acceptance of selected outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisations for COPD exacerbations and follow-up. Methods: An online survey was held amongst COPD patients in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The European Lung Foundation COPD Patient Advisory Group was involved in the conceptualisation, development and dissemination of the survey. The survey was complementary to a previously obtained expert consensus. We assessed patients' views and acceptance of selected patient-reported outcomes or experiences and corresponding measurement instruments (for dyspnoea, frequent productive cough, health status and hospitalisation experience), and of selected clinical investigations (blood draw, pulmonary function test, 6-min walk test, chest computed tomography, echocardiography). Findings: 200 patients completed the survey. All selected outcomes and experiences were deemed important, and acceptance of their methods of assessment was high. The modified Medical Research Council scale and a numerical rating scale to address dyspnoea, the COPD Assessment Test for quality of life and frequent productive cough, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems for hospital experiences were the instruments preferred by patients. Consensus on importance of blood draw and spirometry was higher compared with the other investigations. Interpretation: The survey results endorse the use of the selected outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisations for COPD exacerbations. They can be used to optimise standardised and patient-centred care and facilitate multicentric data collection.

Recovery of Breakthrough Asthma Attacks Treated With Oral Steroids While on Monoclonal Antibody Therapy: Protocol for a Prospective Observational Study (BOOST).

BACKGROUND: Asthma attacks are a common and important problem. Someone experiences an asthma attack in the United Kingdom every 10 seconds. Asthma attacks cause coughing, wheezing, breathlessness, and chest tightness and are highly stressful for patients. They result in reduced quality of life, with days lost from work or school. Asthma attacks are treated with oral corticosteroids (OCSs), but these have many short- and long-term side effects. Asthma monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma by reducing asthma attacks and OCS burden by over 50%, but some people still experience attacks while on mAbs. The MEX study showed that residual asthma attacks are broadly eosinophilic (high fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]) or noneosinophilic (low FeNO), but it did not measure response to OCS treatment. There is an evidence gap in understanding the clinical and inflammatory responses that occur when using OCSs to treat residual asthma attacks in patients taking asthma mAbs. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to compare the clinical recovery between high-FeNO and low-FeNO attacks after acute treatment with oral prednisolone among people established on long-term asthma mAb treatment. The exploratory objective is to compare the inflammatory response to acute treatment with oral prednisolone between high-FeNO and low-FeNO attacks. METHODS: BOOST (Breakthrough Asthma Attacks Treated With Oral Steroids) is a single-center, prospective observational study of 60 adults established on long-term asthma mAb treatment who receive acute treatment with oral prednisolone (usual care) for an asthma attack. The primary outcome will be the proportion of treatment failure (the need to start oral prednisolone or antibiotics or an unscheduled health care visit for asthma, following an attack) at day 28. The secondary outcomes will be the change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and the change in visual analogue scale symptom score between the stable state, attack, day 7, and day 28 visits. The exploratory outcomes include the changes in sputum, nasal, and blood inflammometry between the stable state, attack, day 7, and day 28 visits. RESULTS: The last asthma attack visit is anticipated to occur in December 2023. Data analysis and publication will take place in 2024. CONCLUSIONS: We will test the hypothesis that there is a difference in the rate of recovery of clinical and inflammatory measures between high-FeNO and low-FeNO asthma attacks that occur in patients on mAb therapy. The study data will help power a future randomized placebo-controlled trial of prednisolone treatment for nonsevere attacks in patients treated with asthma mAbs and will provide important information on whether corticosteroid treatment should be FeNO-directed. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46741.

European Respiratory Society International Congress 2021: highlights from best-abstract awardees.

This article provides an overview of some of the highlights of the @EuroRespSoc Congress 2021 from the perspective of the best-abstract awardees of the ERS Assemblies @EarlyCareerERS @OrphaLung https://bit.ly/3JCjHYS.

Early Th2 inflammation in the upper respiratory mucosa as a predictor of severe COVID-19 and modulation by early treatment with inhaled corticosteroids: a mechanistic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Community-based clinical trials of the inhaled corticosteroid budesonide in early COVID-19 have shown improved patient outcomes. We aimed to understand the inflammatory mechanism of budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19. METHODS: The STOIC trial was a randomised, open label, parallel group, phase 2 clinical intervention trial where patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care (as needed antipyretics were only available treatment) or inhaled budesonide at a dose of 800 µg twice a day plus usual care. For this experimental analysis, we investigated the nasal mucosal inflammatory response in patients recruited to the STOIC trial and in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2-negative healthy controls, recruited from a long-term observational data collection study at the University of Oxford. In patients with SARS-CoV-2 who entered the STOIC study, nasal epithelial lining fluid was sampled at day of randomisation (day 0) and at day 14 following randomisation, blood samples were also collected at day 28 after randomisation. Nasal epithelial lining fluid and blood samples were collected from the SARS-CoV-2 negative control cohort. Inflammatory mediators in the nasal epithelial lining fluid and blood were assessed for a range of viral response proteins, and innate and adaptive response markers using Meso Scale Discovery enzyme linked immunoassay panels. These samples were used to investigate the evolution of inflammation in the early COVID-19 disease course and assess the effect of budesonide on inflammation. FINDINGS: 146 participants were recruited in the STOIC trial (n=73 in the usual care group; n=73 in the budesonide group). 140 nasal mucosal samples were available at day 0 (randomisation) and 122 samples at day 14. At day 28, whole blood was collected from 123 participants (62 in the budesonide group and 61 in the usual care group). 20 blood or nasal samples were collected from healthy controls. In early COVID-19 disease, there was an enhanced inflammatory airway response with the induction of an anti-viral and T-helper 1 and 2 (Th1/2) inflammatory response compared with healthy individuals. Individuals with COVID-19 who clinically deteriorated (ie, who met the primary outcome) showed an early blunted respiratory interferon response and pronounced and persistent Th2 inflammation, mediated by CC chemokine ligand (CCL)-24, compared with those with COVID-19 who did not clinically deteriorate. Over time, the natural course of COVID-19 showed persistently high respiratory interferon concentrations and elevated concentrations of the eosinophil chemokine, CCL-11, despite clinical symptom improvement. There was persistent systemic inflammation after 28 days following COVID-19, including elevated concentrations of interleukin (IL)-6, tumour necrosis factor-α, and CCL-11. Budesonide treatment modulated inflammation in the nose and blood and was shown to decrease IL-33 and increase CCL17. The STOIC trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04416399. INTERPRETATION: An initial blunted interferon response and heightened T-helper 2 inflammatory response in the respiratory tract following SARS-CoV-2 infection could be a biomarker for predicting the development of severe COVID-19 disease. The clinical benefit of inhaled budesonide in early COVID-19 is likely to be as a consequence of its inflammatory modulatory effect, suggesting efficacy by reducing epithelial damage and an improved T-cell response. FUNDING: Oxford National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca.

Combination fixed-dose ß agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma: a Cochrane systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In people with mild asthma poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. The use of fixed-dose combination inhalers containing an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a fast-acting ß2-agonist (FABA) is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined FABA/ICS inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cochrane meta-analysis of available trial data. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 12+ and adults with mild asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal on 19 March 2021. INTERVENTIONS: A single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trial. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures and applied the GRADE approach to assess the evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We included six studies from which 9657 participants contributed to the meta-analyses. All used dry powder budesonide and formoterol as the combination inhaler. Two studies included children aged 12+ years and two studies were open-label. FABA/ICS AS-REQUIRED VERSUS FABA AS-REQUIRED: Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reducing the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (mean difference (MD) -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42). FABA/ICS AS REQUIRED VERSUS REGULAR ICS PLUS FABA AS REQUIRED: There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroids with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than MCID. Adverse events and total systemic corticosteroid doses were similar between groups. FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to ICS than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 mcg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09). CONCLUSIONS: FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma and reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events compared with FABA as required alone. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely associated with increased adverse events.

Derivation of a prototype asthma attack risk scale centred on blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide.

Reduction of the risk of asthma attacks is a major goal of current asthma management. We propose to derive a risk scale predicting asthma attacks based on the blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Biomarker-stratified trial-level attack rates were extracted and pooled from the control arms of the Novel START, CAPTAIN, QUEST, Benralizumab Phase 2b, PATHWAY, STRATOS 1-2 and DREAM trials (n=3051). These were used to derive rate ratios and the predicted asthma attack rate for different patient groups. The resultant prototype risk scale shows potential to predict asthma attacks, which may be prevented by anti-inflammatory treatment.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.