Quantitative CT Characteristics of Cluster Phenotypes in the Severe Asthma Research Program Cohorts

Background Clustering key clinical characteristics of participants in the Severe Asthma Research Program (SARP), a large, multicenter prospective observational study of patients with asthma and healthy controls, has led to the identification of novel asthma phenotypes. Purpose To determine whether quantitative CT (qCT) could help distinguish between clinical asthma phenotypes. Materials and Methods A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted with the use of qCT images (maximal bronchodilation at total lung capacity [TLC], or inspiration, and functional residual capacity [FRC], or expiration) from the cluster phenotypes of SARP participants (cluster 1: minimal disease; cluster 2: mild, reversible; cluster 3: obese asthma; cluster 4: severe, reversible; cluster 5: severe, irreversible) enrolled between September 2001 and December 2015. Airway morphometry was performed along standard paths (RB1, RB4, RB10, LB1, and LB10). Corresponding voxels from TLC and FRC images were mapped with use of deformable image registration to characterize disease probability maps (DPMs) of functional small airway disease (fSAD), voxel-level volume changes (Jacobian), and isotropy (anisotropic deformation index [ADI]). The association between cluster assignment and qCT measures was evaluated using linear mixed models. Results A total of 455 participants were evaluated with cluster assignments and CT (mean age ± SD, 42.1 years ± 14.7; 270 women). Airway morphometry had limited ability to help discern between clusters. DPM fSAD was highest in cluster 5 (cluster 1 in SARP III: 19.0% ± 20.6; cluster 2: 18.9% ± 13.3; cluster 3: 24.9% ± 13.1; cluster 4: 24.1% ± 8.4; cluster 5: 38.8% ± 14.4; P < .001). Lower whole-lung Jacobian and ADI values were associated with greater cluster severity. Compared to cluster 1, cluster 5 lung expansion was 31% smaller (Jacobian in SARP III cohort: 2.31 ± 0.6 vs 1.61 ± 0.3, respectively, P < .001) and 34% more isotropic (ADI in SARP III cohort: 0.40 ± 0.1 vs 0.61 ± 0.2, P < .001). Within-lung Jacobian and ADI SDs decreased as severity worsened (Jacobian SD in SARP III cohort: 0.90 ± 0.4 for cluster 1; 0.79 ± 0.3 for cluster 2; 0.62 ± 0.2 for cluster 3; 0.63 ± 0.2 for cluster 4; and 0.41 ± 0.2 for cluster 5; P < .001). Conclusion Quantitative CT assessments of the degree and intraindividual regional variability of lung expansion distinguished between well-established clinical phenotypes among participants with asthma from the Severe Asthma Research Program study. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Verschakelen in this issue.6 month embargo; published online: 26 April 2022This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Randomised controlled trials in the evaluation of non-biomedical therapeutic interventions for pain: The gold standard?

This paper offers a critical review of important issues in the implementation and interpretation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) used to evaluate non-biomedical therapeutic interventions for pain. The analysis of methodological issues focuses on the validity, relevance and clinical importance of outcome measures; sampling and randomization bias; blinding procedures used to control for the placebo response and therapist influences, and treatment standardisation. A key issue is that pain management is inextricably linked to the establishment of a therapeutic relationship. In such circumstances, it is argued that the 'gold standard' double-blind RCT is impracticable. Those relying on RCTs as sources of evidence need to be aware that an 'unblinded' RCT can enhance placebo responses to the intervention and introduce important sources of bias. The challenge faced by healthcare researchers is to identify alternative research designs able to provide valid and reliable evidence that the proposed therapeutic intervention is capable of achieving cost-effective, clinically important and personally relevant outcomes in naturalistic settings