A computerized decision support tool to implement asthma guidelines for children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for asthma management that incorporate usual-care regimens could benefit from standardized application of evidence-based guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate performance of a computerized decision support tool, the Asthma Control Evaluation and Treatment (ACET) Program, to standardize usual-care regimens for asthma management in RCTs. METHODS: Children and adolescents with persistent uncontrolled asthma living in urban census tracts were recruited into 3 multicenter RCTs (each with a usual-care arm) between 2004 and 2014. A computerized decision support tool scored asthma control and assigned an appropriate treatment step based on published guidelines. Control-level determinants (symptoms, rescue medication use, pulmonary function measure, and adherence estimates) were collected at visits and entered into the ACET Program. Changes in control levels and treatment steps were examined during the trials. RESULTS: At screening, more than half of the participants were rated as having symptoms that were not controlled or poorly controlled. The proportion of participants who gained good control between screening and randomization increased significantly in all 3 trials. Between 51% and 70% had symptoms that were well controlled by randomization. The proportion of well-controlled participants remained constant or improved slightly from randomization until the last posttreatment visit. Nighttime symptoms were the most common control-level determinant; there were few (<1%) instances of complete overlap of factors. FEV1 was the driver of control-level assignment in 30% of determinations. CONCLUSION: The ACET Program decision support tool facilitated standardized asthma assessment and treatment in multicenter RCTs and was associated with attaining and maintaining good asthma control in most participants.

Can we predict fall asthma exacerbations? Validation of the seasonal asthma exacerbation index.

BACKGROUND: A Seasonal Asthma Exacerbation Predictive Index (saEPI) was previously reported based on 2 prior National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Inner City Asthma Consortium trials. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to validate the saEPI in a separate trial designed to prevent fall exacerbations with omalizumab therapy. METHODS: The saEPI and its components were analyzed to characterize those who had an asthma exacerbation during the Preventative Omalizumab or Step-Up Therapy for Fall Exacerbations (PROSE) study. We characterized those inner-city children with and without asthma exacerbations in the fall period treated with guidelines-based therapy (GBT) in the absence and presence of omalizumab. RESULTS: A higher saEPI was associated with an exacerbation in both the GBT alone (P < .001; area under the curve, 0.76) and the GBT + omalizumab group (P < .01; area under the curve, 0.65). In the GBT group, younger age at recruitment, higher total IgE, higher blood eosinophil percentage and number, and higher treatment step were associated with those who had an exacerbation compared with those who did not. In the GBT + omalizumab group, younger age at recruitment, increased eosinophil number, recent exacerbation, and higher treatment step were also associated with those who had an exacerbation. The saEPI was associated with a high negative predictive value in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: An exacerbation in children treated with GBT with or without omalizumab was associated with a higher saEPI along with higher markers of allergic inflammation, treatment step, and a recent exacerbation. Those that exacerbated on omalizumab had similar features with the exception of some markers of allergic sensitization, indicating a need to develop better markers to predict poor response to omalizumab therapy and alternative treatment strategies for children with these risk factors. The saEPI was able to reliably predict those children unlikely to have an asthma exacerbation in both groups.

Preseasonal treatment with either omalizumab or an inhaled corticosteroid boost to prevent fall asthma exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Short-term targeted treatment can potentially prevent fall asthma exacerbations while limiting therapy exposure. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare (1) omalizumab with placebo and (2) omalizumab with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) boost with regard to fall exacerbation rates when initiated 4 to 6 weeks before return to school. METHODS: A 3-arm, randomized, double-blind, double placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial was conducted among inner-city asthmatic children aged 6 to 17 years with 1 or more recent exacerbations (clincaltrials.gov #NCT01430403). Guidelines-based therapy was continued over a 4- to 9-month run-in phase and a 4-month intervention phase. In a subset the effects of omalizumab on IFN-α responses to rhinovirus in PBMCs were examined. RESULTS: Before the falls of 2012 and 2013, 727 children were enrolled, 513 were randomized, and 478 were analyzed. The fall exacerbation rate was significantly lower in the omalizumab versus placebo arms (11.3% vs 21.0%; odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92), but there was no significant difference between omalizumab and ICS boost (8.4% vs 11.1%; OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.33-1.64). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, among participants with an exacerbation during the run-in phase, omalizumab was significantly more efficacious than both placebo (6.4% vs 36.3%; OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.64) and ICS boost (2.0% vs 27.8%; OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.002-0.98). Omalizumab improved IFN-α responses to rhinovirus, and within the omalizumab group, greater IFN-α increases were associated with fewer exacerbations (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.01-0.88). Adverse events were rare and similar among arms. CONCLUSIONS: Adding omalizumab before return to school to ongoing guidelines-based care among inner-city youth reduces fall asthma exacerbations, particularly among those with a recent exacerbation.

Reassessment of omalizumab-dosing strategies and pharmacodynamics in inner-city children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Treatment regimens for omalizumab are guided by a dosing table that is based on total serum IgE and body weight. Limited data exist about onset and offset of omalizumab efficacy in children and adolescents or subgroups that most benefit from treatment. OBJECTIVES: Post hoc analyses were conducted to (1) examine patient characteristics of those eligible and ineligible for omalizumab, (2) describe onset of effect after initiation of omalizumab and offset of treatment effect after stopping therapy, and (3) determine whether the efficacy differs by age, asthma severity, dosing regimen, and prespecified biomarkers. METHODS: Inner-city children and adolescents with persistent allergic asthma were enrolled in the Inner-City Anti-IgE Therapy for Asthma trial that compared omalizumab with placebo added to guidelines-based therapy for 60 weeks. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-three of 889 participants (33%) clinically suitable for omalizumab were ineligible for dosing according to a modified dosing table specifying IgE level and body weight criteria. Baseline symptoms were comparable among those eligible and ineligible to receive omalizumab, but other characteristics (rate of health care utilization and skin test results) differed. The time of onset of omalizumab effect was <30 days and time of offset was between 30 and 120 days. No difference in efficacy was noted by age or asthma severity, but high exhaled nitric oxide, blood eosinophils, and body mass index predicted efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: A significant portion of children and adolescents particularly suited for omalizumab because of asthma severity status may be ineligible due to IgE >1300 IU/mL. Omalizumab reduced asthma symptoms and exacerbations rapidly; features associated with efficacy can be identified to guide patient selection.

Development and validation of the Composite Asthma Severity Index--an outcome measure for use in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Asthma severity is reflected in many aspects of the disease, including impairment and future risks, particularly for exacerbations. According to the Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma, however, to assess more comprehensively the severity of asthma the level of current treatment needed to maintain a level of control should be included. OBJECTIVE: Development and validation of a new instrument, the Composite Asthma Severity Index (CASI), which can quantify disease severity by taking into account impairment, risk, and the amount of medication needed to maintain control. At present, there is no instrument available to measure and assess the multidimensional nature of asthma. METHODS: Twenty-six established asthma investigators, who are part of the National Institutes of Health-supported Inner City Asthma Consortium, participated in a modified Delphi consensus process to identify and weight the dimensions of asthma. Factor analysis was performed to identify independent domains of asthma by using the Asthma Control Evaluation trial. CASI was validated by using the Inner City Anti-IgE Therapy for Asthma trial. RESULTS: CASI scores include 5 domains: day symptoms and albuterol use, night symptoms and albuterol use, controller treatment, lung function measures, and exacerbations. At Asthma Control Evaluation trial enrollment, CASI ranged from 0 to 17, with a mean of 6.2. CASI was stable, with minimal change in variance after 1 year of treatment. In external validation, CASI detected a 32% larger improvement than did symptoms alone. CONCLUSION: CASI retained its discriminatory ability even with low levels of symptoms reported after months of guidelines-directed care. Thus, CASI has the ability to determine the level of asthma severity and provide a composite clinical characterization of asthma.

Management of asthma based on exhaled nitric oxide in addition to guideline-based treatment for inner-city adolescents and young adults: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence is equivocal about the role of exhaled nitric oxide (NO) in clinical asthma management. We aimed to assess whether measurement of exhaled NO, as a biomarker of airway inflammation, could increase the effectiveness of asthma treatment, when used as an adjunct to clinical care based on asthma guidelines for inner-city adolescents and young adults. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial at ten centres in the USA. We screened 780 inner-city patients, aged 12-20 years, who had persistent asthma. All patients completed a run-in period of 3 weeks on a regimen based on standard treatment. 546 eligible participants who adhered to treatment during this run-in period were then randomly assigned to 46 weeks of either standard treatment, based on the guidelines of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP), or standard treatment modified on the basis of measurements of fraction of exhaled NO. The primary outcome was the number of days with asthma symptoms. We analysed patients on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00114413. FINDINGS: During the 46-week treatment period, the mean number of days with asthma symptoms did not differ between the treatment groups (1.93 [95% CI 1.74 to 2.11] in the NO monitoring group vs 1.89 [1.71 to 2.07] in the control group; difference 0.04 [-0.22 to 0.29], p=0.780). Other symptoms, pulmonary function, and asthma exacerbations did not differ between groups. Patients in the NO monitoring group received higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids (difference 119 mug per day, 95% CI 49 to 189, p=0.001) than controls. Adverse events did not differ between treatment groups (p>0.1 for all adverse events). INTERPRETATION: Conventional asthma management resulted in good control of symptoms in most participants. The addition of fraction of exhaled NO as an indicator of control of asthma resulted in higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids, without clinically important improvements in symptomatic asthma control.