The use of a direct bronchial challenge test in primary care to diagnose asthma

Many asthmatics in primary care have mild symptoms and lack airflow obstruction. If variable expiratory airflow limitation cannot be determined by spirometry or peak expiratory flow, despite a history of respiratory symptoms, a positive bronchial challenge test (BCT) can confirm the diagnosis of asthma. However, BCT is traditionally performed in secondary care. In this observational real-life study, we retrospectively analyze 5-year data of a primary care diagnostic center carrying out BCT by histamine provocation. In total, 998 primary care patients aged ≥16 years underwent BCT, without any adverse events reported. To explore diagnostic accuracy, we examine 584 patients with a high pretest probability of asthma. Fifty-seven percent of these patients have a positive BCT result and can be accurately diagnosed with asthma. Our real-life data show BCT is safe and feasible in a suitably equipped primary care diagnostic center. Furthermore, it could potentially reduce diagnostic referrals to secondary care

Adequacy of Therapy for People with Both COPD and Heart Failure in the UK: Historical Cohort Study

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) often occur concomitantly, presenting diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for clinicians. We examined the characteristics of patients prescribed adequate versus inadequate therapy within 3 months after newly diagnosed comorbid COPD or HF. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients in longitudinal UK electronic medical record databases had pre-existing HF and newly diagnosed COPD (2017 GOLD groups B/C/D) or pre-existing COPD and newly diagnosed HF. Adequate COPD therapy was defined as long-acting bronchodilator(s) with/without inhaled corticosteroid; adequate HF therapy was defined as beta-blocker plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin receptor blocker. Results: Of 2439 patients with HF and newly diagnosed COPD (mean 75 years, 61% men), adequate COPD therapy was prescribed for 726 (30%) and inadequate for 1031 (42%); 682 (28%) remained untreated for COPD. Adequate (vs inadequate) COPD therapy was less likely for women (35%) than men (45%), smokers (36%) than ex-/non-smokers (45%), and non-obese (41%) than obese (47%); spirometry was recorded for 57% prescribed adequate versus 35% inadequate COPD therapy. Of 12,587 patients with COPD and newly diagnosed HF (mean 75 years, 60% men), adequate HF therapy was prescribed for 2251 (18%) and inadequate for 5332 (42%); 5004 (40%) remained untreated for HF. Adequate (vs inadequate) HF therapy was less likely for smokers (27%) than ex-/non-smokers (32%) and non-obese (30%) than obese (35%); spirometry was recorded for 65% prescribed adequate versus 39% inadequate HF therapy. Conclusion: Many patients with comorbid COPD/HF receive inadequate therapy after new diagnosis. Improved equity of access to integrated care is needed for all patient subgroups

Novel study design to assess the utility of the copd assessment test in a primary care setting

The quality of a consultation provided by a physician can have a profound impact on the quality of care and patient engagement in treatment decisions. When the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was developed, one of its aims was to aid the communication between physician and patient about the impact of COPD. We developed a novel study design to assess this in a primary care consultation. Primary care physicians across five countries in Europe conducted videoed consultations with six standardised COPD patients (played by trained actors) which had patient-specific issues that the physician needed to identify through questioning. Half the physicians saw the patients with the completed CAT, and half without. Independent assessors scored the physicians on their ability to identify and address the patient-specific issues, review standard COPD aspects, their understanding of the case and their overall performance. This novel study design presented many challenges which needed to be addressed to achieve an acceptable level of robustness to assess the utility of the CAT. This paper discusses these challenges and the measures adopted to eliminate or minimise their impact on the study results

Budesonide/formoterol as effective as prednisolone plus formoterol in acute exacerbations of COPD A double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oral corticosteroids and inhaled bronchodilators with or without antibiotics represent standard treatment of COPD exacerbations of moderate severity. Frequent courses of oral steroids may be a safety issue. We wanted to evaluate in an out-patient setting whether a 2-week course of inhaled budesonide/formoterol would be equally effective for treatment of acute COPD exacerbations as standard therapy in patients judged by the investigator not to require hospitalisation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing two treatment strategies; two weeks' treatment with inhaled budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg, qid) was compared with prednisolone (30 mg once daily) plus inhaled formoterol (9 μg bid) in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD attending a primary health care centre. Inclusion criteria were progressive dyspnoea for less than one week, FEV₁30–60% of predicted normal after acute treatment with a single dose of oral corticosteroid plus nebulised salbutamol/ipratropium bromide and no requirement for subsequent immediate hospitalisation, i.e the clinical status after the acute treatment allowed for sending the patient home.</p> <p>A total of 109 patients (mean age 67 years, 33 pack-years, mean FEV₁45% of predicted) were randomized to two weeks' double-blind treatment with budesonide/formoterol or prednisolone plus formoterol and subsequent open-label budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg bid) for another 12 weeks. Change in FEV₁was the primary efficacy variable. Non-inferiority was predefined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Non-inferiority of budesonide/formoterol was proven because the lower limit of FEV₁-change (97.5% CI) was above 90% of the efficacy of the alternative treatment. Symptoms, quality of life, treatment failures, need for reliever medication (and exacerbations during follow-up) did not differ between the groups. No safety concerns were identified.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>High dose budesonide/formoterol was as effective as prednisolone plus formoterol for the ambulatory treatment of acute exacerbations in non-hospitalized COPD patients. An early increase in budesonide/formoterol dose may therefore be tried before oral corticosteroids are used.</p> <p>Clinical trial registration</p> <p>NCT00259779</p

Performance Characteristics of Breezhaler((R)) and Aerolizer((R)) in the Real-World Setting

The evaluation of errors in use with different inhaler devices is challenging to quantify as there are a number of definitions of critical and non-critical errors with respect to inhaler use; in addition, performance characteristics of the device, such as airflow resistance, can also influence effective use in the real-world setting. Repeated observations and checking/correcting inhaler use are essential to optimise clinical effectiveness of inhaled therapy in patients. Breezhaler® is a single unit-dose dry powder inhaler used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in asthma (budesonide) that has low airflow resistance, making it easier for patients of varying disease severities to achieve the inhalation flow rate required for lung deposition of treatment. Similar to Breezhaler®, the Aerolizer® is a single unit-dose dry powder inhaler used in asthma management with low airflow resistance. Studies have shown relatively low rates of critical errors with Breezhaler® and Aerolizer®, with similarities in the critical errors reported; these data on critical errors together with similarities in the usability of Breezhaler® and Aerolizer® further support the functional similarity between the two devices in both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Breezhaler® also has patient-feedback features, including use of a transparent drug capsule that can be checked after inhalation to see it is empty. The low resistance of the dose-confirming Breezhaler® results in less inspiratory effort being required by patients for its effective use, which allows the device to be used effectively across a wide age range of patients and disease severities

Global variability in administrative approval prescription criteria for biologic therapy in severe asthma

Background Regulatory bodies have approved five biologics for severe asthma. However, regional differences in accessibility may limit the global potential for personalized medicine. Objective To compare global differences in ease of access to biologics. Methods In April 2021, national prescription criteria for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were reviewed by severe asthma experts collaborating in the International Severe Asthma Registry. Outcomes (per country, per biologic) were (1) country-specific prescription criteria and (2) development of the Biologic Accessibility Score (BACS). The BACS composite score incorporates 10 prescription criteria, each with a maximum score of 10 points. Referenced to European Medicines Agency marketing authorization specifications, a higher score reflects easier access. Results Biologic prescription criteria differed substantially across 28 countries from five continents. Blood eosinophil count thresholds (usually ≥300 cells/μL) and exacerbations were key requirements for anti-IgE/anti–IL-5/5R prescriptions in around 80% of licensed countries. Most countries (40% for dupilumab to 54% for mepolizumab) require two or more moderate or severe exacerbations, whereas numbers ranged from none to four. Moreover, 0% (for reslizumab) to 21% (for omalizumab) of countries required long-term oral corticosteroid use. The BACS highlighted marked between-country differences in ease of access. For omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, only two, one, four, and seven countries, respectively, scored equal or higher than the European Medicines Agency reference BACS. For reslizumab, all countries scored lower. Conclusions Although some differences were expected in country-specific biologic prescription criteria and ease of access, the substantial differences found in the current study present a challenge to implementing precision medicine across the world

Do health-status measures play a role in improving treatment in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?

During the past few decades, health status has become increasingly important in the clinical research of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The use of health-status questionnaires in routine practice can enhance understanding about the impact of the disease on the patient, improve standardisation and increase compliance through increased patient satisfaction. However, before health-status measurement in individual patients can be used in routine practice, questionnaires have to be validated on an individual level. in this article, the authors suggest a new method of assessing this individual validity, to enhance the use of health-status instruments in daily clinical practice, and thus improve treatment in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease