The level of specialist assessment of adult asthma is influenced by patient age

SummaryBackgroundLate onset asthma is associated with more severe disease and higher morbidity than in younger asthma patients. This may in part relate to under recognition of asthma in older adults, but evidence on the impact of patient age on diagnostic assessment of asthma in a specialist setting is sparse.AimTo examine the impact of patient age on the type and proportion of diagnostic tests performed in patients undergoing specialist assessment for asthma.MethodsData from a clinical population consisting of all patients consecutively referred over a 12 months period to a specialist clinic for assessment of asthma were analysed.ResultsA total of 224 patients with asthma or suspected asthma were referred during the 12 month period; 86 adults aged <35 years, 95 aged 35–55 years and 43 aged >55 years. Symptom characteristics were similar, but adults >35 years had a lower lung function than younger adults, and were more frequently smokers. However, a regression analysis showed that older age was associated with a lower likelihood of diagnostic assessment with a reversibility test, a bronchial challenge test, or measurement of exhaled NO, independently of a known diagnosis of asthma, smoking habits and lung function at referral.ConclusionA lower level of diagnostic assessment was observed already after the age of 35 years, indicating a risk for under diagnosis of asthma at an earlier patient age than previously thought

Longitudinal stability of asthma characteristics and biomarkers from the Airways Disease Endotyping for Personalized Therapeutics (ADEPT) study

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a biologically heterogeneous disease and development of novel therapeutics requires understanding of pathophysiologic phenotypes. There is uncertainty regarding the stability of clinical characteristics and biomarkers in asthma over time. This report presents the longitudinal stability over 12 months of clinical characteristics and clinically accessible biomarkers from ADEPT. METHODS: Mild, moderate, and severe asthma subjects were assessed at 5 visits over 12 months. Assessments included patient questionnaires, spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), and biomarkers measured in induced sputum. RESULTS: Mild (n = 52), moderate (n = 55), and severe (n = 51) asthma cohorts were enrolled from North America and Western Europe. For all clinical characteristics and biomarkers, group mean data showed no significant change from visit to visit. However, individual data showed considerable variability. FEV1/FVC ratio showed excellent reproducibility while pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and FVC were only moderately reproducible. Of note bronchodilator FEV1 reversibility showed low reproducibility, with the nonreversible phenotype much more reproducible than the reversible phenotype. The 7-item asthma control questionnaire (ACQ7) demonstrated moderate reproducibility for the combined asthma cohorts, but the uncontrolled asthma phenotype (ACQ7 > 1.5) was inconstant in mild and moderate asthma but stable in severe asthma. FENO demonstrated good reproducibility, with the FENO-low phenotype (FENO < 35 ppb) more stable than the FENO-high phenotype (FENO ≥ 35 ppb). Induced sputum inflammatory phenotypes showed marked variability across the 3 sputum samples taken over 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The ADEPT cohort showed group stability, individual stability in some parameters e.g. low FEV1/FVC ratio, and low FENO, but marked individual variability in other clinical characteristics and biomarkers e.g. type-2 biomarkers over 12 months. This variability is possibly related to seasonal variations in climate and allergen exposure, medication changes and acute exacerbations. The implications for patient selection strategies based on clinical biomarkers may be considerable

Biologic Responders and Super-responders in the International Severe Asthma Registry

Peer reviewe

Comparison of mannitol and methacholine to predict exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and a clinical diagnosis of asthma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Asthma can be difficult to diagnose, but bronchial provocation with methacholine, exercise or mannitol is helpful when used to identify bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), a key feature of the disease. The utility of these tests in subjects with signs and symptoms of asthma but without a clear diagnosis has not been investigated. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol to identify exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) as a manifestation of BHR; compared this with methacholine; and compared the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol and methacholine for a clinician diagnosis of asthma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>509 people (6–50 yr) were enrolled, 78% were atopic, median FEV₁92.5% predicted, and a low NAEPPII asthma score of 1.2. Subjects with symptoms of seasonal allergy were excluded. BHR to exercise was defined as a ≥ 10% fall in FEV₁on at least one of two tests, to methacholine a PC₂₀≤ 16 mg/ml and to mannitol a 15% fall in FEV₁at ≤ 635 mg or a 10% fall between doses. The clinician diagnosis of asthma was made on examination, history, skin tests, questionnaire and response to exercise but they were blind to the mannitol and methacholine results.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mannitol and methacholine were therapeutically equivalent to identify EIB, a clinician diagnosis of asthma, and prevalence of BHR. The sensitivity/specificity of mannitol to identify EIB was 59%/65% and for methacholine it was 56%/69%. The BHR was mild. Mean EIB % fall in FEV₁in subjects positive to exercise was 19%, (SD 9.2), mannitol PD₁₅158 (CI:129,193) mg, and methacholine PC₂₀2.1(CI:1.7, 2.6)mg/ml. The prevalence of BHR was the same: for exercise (43.5%), mannitol (44.8%), and methacholine (41.6%) with a test agreement between 62 & 69%. The sensitivity and specificity for a clinician diagnosis of asthma was 56%/73% for mannitol and 51%/75% for methacholine. The sensitivity increased to 73% and 72% for mannitol and methacholine when two exercise tests were positive.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this group with normal FEV₁, mild symptoms, and mild BHR, the sensitivity and specificity for both mannitol and methacholine to identify EIB and a clinician diagnosis of asthma were equivalent, but lower than previously documented in well-defined populations.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This was a multi-center trial comprising 25 sites across the United States of America. (NCT0025229).</p

Comparative effectiveness of Anti-IL5 and Anti-IgE biologic classes in patients with severe asthma eligible for both.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use

International Variation in Severe Exacerbation Rates in Patients With Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Exacerbation frequency strongly influences treatment choices in patients with severe asthma. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the extent of the variability of exacerbations rate across countries and its implications in disease management? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrieved data from the International Severe Asthma Registry, an international observational cohort of patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe asthma. We identified patients ≥ 18 years of age who did not initiate any biologics prior to baseline visit. A severe exacerbation was defined as the use of oral corticosteroids for ≥ 3 days or asthma-related hospitalization/ED visit. A series of negative binomial models were applied to estimate country-specific severe exacerbation rates during 365 days of follow-up, starting from a naïve model with country as the only variable to an adjusted model with country as a random-effect term and patient and disease characteristics as independent variables. RESULTS: The final sample included 7,510 patients from 17 countries (56% from the United States), contributing to 1,939 severe exacerbations (0.27/person-year). There was large between-country variation in observed severe exacerbation rate (minimum, 0.04 [Argentina]; maximum, 0.88 [Saudi Arabia]; interquartile range, 0.13-0.54), which remained substantial after adjusting for patient characteristics and sampling variability (interquartile range, 0.16-0.39). INTERPRETATION: Individuals with similar patient characteristics but coming from different jurisdictions have varied severe exacerbation risks, even after controlling for patient and disease characteristics. This suggests unknown patient factors or system-level variations at play. Disease management guidelines should recognize such between-country variability. Risk prediction models that are calibrated for each jurisdiction will be needed to optimize treatment strategies

Exploring Definitions and Predictors of Severe Asthma Clinical Remission Post-Biologic in Adults.

RATIONALE: There is no consensus on criteria to include in an asthma remission definition in real-life. Factors associated with achieving remission post-biologic-initiation remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the proportion of adults with severe asthma achieving multi-domain-defined remission post-biologic-initiation and identify pre-biologic characteristics associated with achieving remission which may be used to predict it. METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 23 countries from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1-year pre- and post-biologic-initiation. A priori-defined remission cut-offs were: 0 exacerbations/year, no long-term oral corticosteroid (LTOCS), partly/well-controlled asthma, and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second ≥80%. Remission was defined using 2 (exacerbations + LTOCS), 3 (+control or +lung function) and 4 of these domains. The association between pre-biologic characteristics and post-biologic remission was assessed by multivariable analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 50.2%, 33.5%, 25.8% and 20.3% of patients met criteria for 2, 3 (+control), 3 (+lung function) and 4-domain-remission, respectively. The odds of achieving 4-domain remission decreased by 15% for every additional 10-years asthma duration (odds ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.00). The odds of remission increased in those with fewer exacerbations/year, lower LTOCS daily dose, better control and better lung function pre-biologic-initiation. CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 patients achieved 4-domain remission within 1-year of biologic-initiation. Patients with less severe impairment and shorter asthma duration at initiation had a greater chance of achieving remission post-biologic, indicating that biologic treatment should not be delayed if remission is the goal. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Allergic rhinitis: evidence for impact on asthma

BACKGROUND: This paper reviews the current evidence indicating that comorbid allergic rhinitis may have clinically relevant effects on asthma. DISCUSSION: Allergic rhinitis is very common in patients with asthma, with a reported prevalence of up to 100% in those with allergic asthma. While the temporal relation of allergic rhinitis and asthma diagnoses can be variable, the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis often precedes that of asthma. Rhinitis is an independent risk factor for the subsequent development of asthma in both atopic and nonatopic individuals. Controlled studies have provided conflicting results regarding the benefits for asthma symptoms of treating comorbid allergic rhinitis with intranasal corticosteroids. Effects of other treatments for comorbid allergic rhinitis, including antihistamines, allergen immunotherapy, systemic anti-IgE therapy, and antileukotriene agents, have been examined in a limited number of studies; anti-IgE therapy and antileukotriene agents such as the leukotriene receptor antagonists have benefits for treating both allergic rhinitis and asthma. Results of observational studies indicate that treating comorbid allergic rhinitis results in a lowered risk of asthma-related hospitalizations and emergency visits. Results of several retrospective database studies in the United States and in Europe indicate that, for patients with asthma, the presence of comorbid allergic rhinitis is associated with higher total annual medical costs, greater prescribing frequency of asthma-related medications, as well as increased likelihood of asthma-related hospital admissions and emergency visits. There is therefore evidence suggesting that comorbid allergic rhinitis is a marker for more difficult to control asthma and worsened asthma outcomes. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the potential for improving asthma outcomes by following a combined therapeutic approach to comorbid allergic rhinitis and asthma rather than targeting each condition separately

Development of Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma (COMSA)

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness studies with biological therapies for asthma lack standardised outcome measures. The COMSA (Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma) working group sought to develop Core Outcome Measures (COM) sets to facilitate better synthesis of data and appraisal of biologics in paediatric and adult asthma clinical studies.METHODS: COMSA utilised a multi-stakeholder consensus process among patients with severe asthma, adult, and paediatric clinicians, pharmaceutical representatives and health regulators from across Europe. Evidence included a systematic review of development, validity, and reliability of selected outcome measures plus a narrative review and a pan-European survey to better understand patients' and carers' views about outcome measures. It was discussed using a modified GRADE Evidence to Decision framework. Anonymous voting was conducted using predefined consensus criteria.RESULTS: Both adult and paediatric COM sets include forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) as z scores, annual frequency of severe exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use. Additionally, the paediatric COM set includes the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Asthma Control Test (ACT) or Childhood-ACT while the adult COM includes the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (symptoms and rescue medication use reported separately).CONCLUSIONS: This patient-centred collaboration has produced two COM sets for paediatric and adult severe asthma. It is expected that they will inform the methodology of future clinical trials, enhance comparability of efficacy and effectiveness of biological therapies, and help assess their socioeconomic value. COMSA will inform definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.</p