Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

A Current Perspective of Allergic Asthma: From Mechanisms to Management

Asthma is a result of heterogenous, complex gene-environment interactions with variable clinical phenotypes, inflammation, and remodeling. It affects more than 330 million of people worldwide throughout their educational and working lives, while exacerbations put a heavy cost/burden on productivity. Childhood asthma is characterized by a predominance of allergic sensitization and multimorbidity, while in adults polysensitization has been positively associated with asthma occurrence. Despite significant improvements in recent decades, asthma management remains challenging. Recently, a group of specialists suggested that the term "asthma" should be preferably used as a descriptive term for symptoms. Moreover, type 2 inflammation has emerged as a pivotal disease mechanism including overlapping endotypes of specific IgE production, while type 2-low asthma includes several disease endotypes. Optimal asthma control requires both appropriate pharmacological interventions, tailored to each patient, as well as trigger avoidance measures. Regular monitoring for maintenance of symptom control, preservation of lung function, and detection of treatment-related adverse effects are warranted. Allergen-specific immunotherapy and the advent of new targeted therapies for patients with difficult to control asthma offer diverse treatment options. The current review summarizes up-to-date knowledge on epidemiology, definitions, diagnosis, and current therapeutic strategies.

Qualitative Study of Practices and Challenges of Stepping Down Asthma Medication in Primary Care Across the UK

Background

Guidelines recommend that asthma treatment should be stepped down to the minimally effective dose that achieves symptom control to prevent medication side effects and reduce unnecessary costs. Little is known about the practice of stepping down and the challenges in primary care, where most asthma patients are managed.

Objective

To explore views, experiences, barriers and ideas, of doctors, nurses and pharmacists working in primary care, related to step down of asthma medication.

Methods

Primary care practitioners from across the UK participated in a survey and/or semi-structured interview. Questions explored four main areas: how asthma medication is reviewed, views on asthma guidelines, perceived barriers faced by healthcare workers and facilitators of stepping down. Qualitative content analysis enabled data coding of interview transcripts to identify major themes.

Results

A total of 274 participants responded to the survey, 29 participated in an interview (12 doctors, 9 nurses, and 8 pharmacists), working in GP practices from across the UK. Nearly half of the survey participants infrequently step down asthma medication (doctors=42.7%, nurses=46.3%). Four major themes related to barriers to stepping down were (i) lack of awareness of the need to step down, (ii) inertia to step down, driven by low confidence in ability, fear of consequences, and concern for who is responsible for stepping down, (iii) self-efficacy of ability to step down, influenced by lack of clear, applied guidance and limited training, and (iv) feasibility of step down, driven by a lack of systematic acceptance of stepping down and time. Strategies proposed to reduce overtreatment included education and training, improved gathering of evidence and guidance, and integrating step down into routine asthma care.

Conclusion

Failure to implement this guideline recommendation into everyday asthma management is influenced by several contributing factors. Future directions should include addressing evidence gaps, implementing clear and practical guidance, integration of step-down assessment into the asthma review, and education of professionals and patients.

Health and cost impact of stepping down asthma medication for UK patients, 2001-2017: A population-based observational study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend stepping down asthma treatment to the minimum effective dose to achieve symptom control, prevent adverse side effects, and reduce costs. Limited data exist on asthma prescription patterns in a real-world setting. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of doses prescribed to a UK general asthma population and assess whether stepping down medication increased exacerbations or reliever use, as well as its impact on costs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used nationwide UK primary care medical records, 2001-2017, to identify 508,459 adult asthma patients managed with preventer medication. Prescriptions of higher-level medication: medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or ICSs + add-on medication (long-acting β2-agonist [LABA], leukotriene receptor antagonist [LTRA], theophylline, or long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) steadily increased over time (2001 = 49.8%, 2017 = 68.3%). Of those prescribed their first preventer, one-third were prescribed a higher-level medication, of whom half had no reliever prescription or exacerbation in the year prior. Of patients first prescribed ICSs + 1 add-on, 70.4% remained on the same medication during a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Of those prescribed medium/high-dose ICSs as their first preventer, 13.0% already had documented diabetes, cataracts, glaucoma, or osteopenia/osteoporosis. A cohort of 125,341 patients were drawn to assess the impact of stepping down medication: mean age 50.4 years, 39.4% males, 39,881 stepped down. Exposed patients were stepped down by dropping their LABAs or another add-on or by halving their ICS dose (halving their mean-daily dose or their inhaler dose). The primary and secondary outcomes were, respectively, exacerbations and an increase in reliever prescriptions. Multivariable regression was used to assess outcomes and determine the prognostic factors for initiating stepdown. There was no increased exacerbation risk for each possible medication stepdown (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.86, 0.77-0.93, p < 0.001; ICS mean daily = 0.80, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.001; LABA = 1.01, 0.92-1.11, p = 0.87, other add-on = 1.00, 0.91-1.09, p = 0.79) and no increase in reliever prescriptions (adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.99, 0.98-1.00, p = 0.59; ICS mean daily = 0.78, 0.76-0.79, p < 0.001; LABA = 0.83, 0.82-0.85, p < 0.001; other add-on = 0.86, 0.85-0.87, p < 0.001). Prognostic factors to initiate stepdown included medication burden, but not medication side effects. National Health Service (NHS) indicative prices were used for cost estimates. Stepping down medication, either LABAs or ICSs, could save annually around £17,000,000 or £8,600,000, respectively. Study limitations include the possibility that prescribed medication may not have been dispensed or adhered to and the reason for stepdown was not documented.

CONCLUSION

In this UK study, we observed that asthma patients were increasingly prescribed higher levels of treatment, often without clear clinical indication for such high doses. Stepping down medication did not adversely affect outcomes and was associated with substantial cost savings.

2020 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of asthma

The pharmacological management of asthma has changed considerably in recent decades, as it has come to be understood that it is a complex, heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes and endotypes. It is now clear that the goal of asthma treatment should be to achieve and maintain control of the disease, as well as to minimize the risks (of exacerbations, disease instability, accelerated loss of lung function, and adverse treatment effects). That requires an approach that is personalized in terms of the pharmacological treatment, patient education, written action plan, training in correct inhaler use, and review of the inhaler technique at each office visit. A panel of 22 pulmonologists was invited to perform a critical review of recent evidence of pharmacological treatment of asthma and to prepare this set of recommendations, a treatment guide tailored to use in Brazil. The topics or questions related to the most significant changes in concepts, and consequently in the management of asthma in clinical practice, were chosen by a panel of experts. To formulate these recommendations, we asked each expert to perform a critical review of a topic or to respond to a question, on the basis of evidence in the literature. In a second phase, three experts discussed and structured all texts submitted by the others. That was followed by a third phase, in which all of the experts reviewed and discussed each recommendation. These recommendations, which are intended for physicians involved in the treatment of asthma, apply to asthma patients of all ages.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Long-term Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis- Current Concepts and Perspectives for Steroid Use

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus, which requires short- and long-term treatment. In addition, patients under long-term treatment for any chronic condition should have a structured follow-up. The mainstays in EoE treatment are drugs (such as swallowed topical corticosteroids [STC] and proton pump inhibitors), dietary exclusions, and endoscopic dilations. STC are the most widely used treatment and have proven efficacy in inducing clinical, endoscopic and histological remission in active EoE. However, data regarding maintaining disease remission and long-term management are limited. Ongoing disease activity and relapses despite STC treatment are frequently observed. This sheds light on the urgent need for adequate maintenance strategies, which have not been well defined. In terms of follow-up concepts, to date neither guidelines nor consensus recommendations have been published. To summarize the current knowledge on long-term diagnostic and therapeutic STC management of EoE, we conducted a literature search using PubMed and Embase applying the following key search items: Eosinophilic esophagitis, eosinophils, esophagus, swallowed topical corticosteroids, fluticasone, budesonide, long-term, treatment, therapy, and follow-up. In addition, we present empirically developed long-term management concepts applied at two large EoE centers, with a special focus on STC treatments. Finally, we highlight areas of future research and perspectives regarding the long-term management of EoE.