Beneficial effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in adult asthma

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Cost-effectiveness of asthma control: an economic appraisal of the GOAL study

<i>Background</i>: The Gaining Optimal Asthma ControL (GOAL) study has shown the superiority of a combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) compared with fluticasone propionate alone (FP) in terms of improving guideline defined asthma control. <i>Methods</i>: Clinical and economic data were taken from the GOAL study, supplemented with data on health related quality of life, in order to estimate the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) results for each of three strata (previously corticosteroid-free, low- and moderate-dose corticosteroid users). A series of statistical models of trial outcomes was used to construct cost effectiveness estimates across the strata of the multinational GOAL study including adjustment to the UK experience. Uncertainty was handled using the non-parametric bootstrap. Cost-effectiveness was compared with other treatments for chronic conditions. <i>Result</i>: Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate improved the proportion of patients achieving totally and well-controlled weeks resulting in a similar QALY gain across the three strata of GOAL. Additional costs of treatment were greatest in stratum 1 and least in stratum 3, with some of the costs offset by reduced health care resource use. Cost-effectiveness by stratum was £7600 (95% CI: £4800–10 700) per QALY gained for stratum 3; £11 000 (£8600–14 600) per QALY gained for stratum 2; and £13 700 (£11 000–18 300) per QALY gained for stratum 1. <i>Conclusion</i>: The GOAL study previously demonstrated the improvement in total control associated with the use of SFC compared with FP alone. This study suggests that this improvement in control is associated with cost-per-QALY figures that compare favourably with other uses of scarce health care resources

Clinical effects of a Long-term Educational Program for children with asthma - Aironet. A 1-yr randomized controlled trial

Educational self-management programs for children with asthma have now become a routine feature in the management of the disease, as international guidelines underline. We designed this trial to find out whether Aironet, an educational program developed for children with asthma, influenced asthma severity and improved parents' knowledge of the disease. In a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial we enrolled 123 children, 72 boys, mean age 8.78 yr (+/-2.33 s.d.), with intermittent or mild persistent asthma. Participants were randomly assigned to an education group, who received Aironet at baseline and 2 months later (60 children), or to a control group who did not (63 children). Follow-up lasted 12 months and included out-patient clinic visits and spirometry at 2, 4 and 12 months. At baseline and at 12 months follow-up, parents were questioned about their knowledge of asthma, and their children's asthmatic attacks, use of systemic corticosteroids, family physician or hospital emergency room visits, hospitalizations and asthma-related school absences. Questionnaire replies at 12-month follow-up reported significantly fewer asthma attacks in patients who received the program than in those who did not (1.65 +/- 1.21 vs. 2.34 +/- 1.73; p or =3 asthma attacks at baseline, parents' knowledge improved significantly more in the educational group than in the control group. The out-patient educational program Aironet reduces the number of asthma attacks in children with intermittent or mild persistent asthma and improves knowledge of the disease

Eosinophilic Bronchitis, Eosinophilia Associated Genetic Variants, and Notch Signaling in Asthma

While much has indeed been learned about the biology and role of eosinophils, the paradigm of eosinophils has the pros and cons in development of asthma. To answer the questions in the black box, this review firstly discusses the biological and morphological differences between asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis (EB). EB is an interesting clinical manifestation of eosinophilic airway disease that does not involve airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), demonstrating that airway eosinophilia alone is insufficient to merit a diagnosis of asthma. Secondly, I will describe and discuss the effect(s) of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the genes CCR3, IL-5 RECEPTOR ALPHA (IL5RA), and IL1RL1, and finally the in vitro and in vivo effects of Notch inhibition on both eosinophil differentiation and experimental asthma. Eosinophilic airway inflammation is not as important in the pathogenesis and maintenance of asthma as had previously been thought. However, the role of eosinophils in other asthma subphenotypes, including refractory or severely remodeled asthma, needs to be evaluated further. High-throughput methodologies such as genomics will facilitate the discovery of new markers of inflammation; these, in turn, will aid in the evaluation of the role of eosinophils in asthma and its various subphenotypes

Efficacy of BI 671800, an oral CRTH2 antagonist, in poorly controlled asthma as sole controller and in the presence of inhaled corticosteroid treatment

The prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor, CRTH2, plays a role in allergic airway inflammation. The efficacy of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, was assessed in 2 separate trials in patients with asthma, in either the absence or the presence of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. In this study, BI 671800 (50, 200 or 400 mg) and fluticasone propionate (220 mg) all given twice daily (bid) were compared with bid placebo in symptomatic controller-naïve adults with asthma (Trial 1), and BI 671800 400 mg bid compared with montelukast 10 mg once daily (qd), and matching placebo bid, in patients with asthma receiving inhaled fluticasone (88 mg bid) (Trial 2). The primary endpoint in both trials was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) percent predicted. After 6 weeks' treatment, adjusted mean treatment differences (SE) for the primary endpoint compared with placebo in Trial 1 were 3.08% (1.65%), 3.59% (1.60%) and 3.98% (1.64%) for BI 671800 50, 200 and 400 mg bid, respectively, and 8.62% (1.68%) for fluticasone 220 mg bid (p ¼ 0.0311, p ¼ 0.0126, p ¼ 0.0078 and p < 0.0001, respectively). In Trial 2, adjusted mean FEV1 (SE) treatment differences compared with placebo were 3.87% (1.49%) for BI 671800 400 mg bid and 2.37% (1.57%) for montelukast (p ¼ 0.0050 and p ¼ 0.0657, respectively). These findings suggest that BI 671800 is associated with a small improvement in FEV1 in symptomatic controller-naïve asthma patients, and in patients on ICS