A Simple Score for Future Risk Prediction in Patients with Controlled Asthma Who Undergo a Guidelines-Based Step-Down Strategy

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

A prediction model for asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the prediction of the risks of asthma exacerbation after stopping asthma biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics using machine learning models.

METHODS

We identified 3057 people with asthma who stopped asthma biologics in the OptumLabs Database Warehouse and considered a wide range of demographic and clinical risk factors to predict subsequent outcomes. The primary outcome used to assess success after stopping was having no exacerbations in the 6 months after stopping the biologic. Elastic-net logistic regression (GLMnet), random forest, and gradient boosting machine models were used with 10-fold cross-validation within a development (80%) cohort and validation cohort (20%).

RESULTS

The mean age of the total cohort was 47.1 (SD, 17.1) years, 1859 (60.8%) were women, 2261 (74.0%) were White, and 1475 (48.3%) were in the Southern region of the United States. The elastic-net logistic regression model yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78) in the development and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The random forest model yielded an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The gradient boosting machine model yielded an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.74 in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes after stopping asthma biologics can be predicted with moderate accuracy using machine learning methods.

Step-up and step-down approaches in the treatment of asthma

Introduction: Significant intraindividual and temporal variability in symptom control is a feature of asthma that requires careful monitoring and the need to periodically review and adjust therapy. Both NHLBI/NAEPP and GINA offer helpful algorithms for a stepping approach to asthma.Areas covered: The problems arisen in applying the stepwise approach to the treatment of asthma proposed by NHLBI/NAEPP and GINA algorithms and their possible alternatives.Expert opinion: The current therapeutic stepping approach to asthma, which takes into account lung function, symptoms and quality of life, is certainly useful, but it does not consider the underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, patient's overestimation or underestimation of the severity of the disease and differences in the opinions on the level of asthma control required between patients and physicians and also between physicians in both primary care and specialist settings are common and may negatively affect asthma control and future risks. A reassessment of the conventional stepping approach to management of asthma is now needed. A pragmatic approach that sets therapeutic goals for each individual and associates them with the treatable traits of asthma which, when therapeutically targeted, will in many cases help to achieve the goals, seems more reasonable than the present stepping approach.

A step-down experience in asthma treatment: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

According to recent guidelines; patients with controlled asthma who are stable for at least three months and don't have risk factor should be considered for step down.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate our step down attempts and affecting factors.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective-cohort study of patients with asthma who were followed up in our clinic for at least one year. Sociodemographic, phenotypic, clinical features and number of step-down attempts were recorded from the files. Step down was tried in well controlled patients and considered as successful whether descending step was maintained or a lower step was reached until the last visit.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients (196 F/43 M) with a mean age of 51.54 ± 15.29 years were included in the study. Step-down attempt was performed in 44.8% (n = 107) of the patients and % 74.8 (n = 80) of them were successful. Factors related to failure were lower level of education, allergic comorbidity (p = 0.04) and female gender (p = 0.04). Risk of failure was 3.45 and 1.84 times higher than university graduates in high school and primary school graduates, respectively. The probability of failure in step down was 3.38 times higher in patients with allergic comorbidity, and it was 3.92 times more likely in women than men.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that the step down attempt could be performed in patients receiving treatment from all steps. In addition, treatment of allergic comorbidities and increased level of education, may make a step down attempt more successful.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2019 Highlights

This article provides highlights of the clinically impactful original studies and reviews published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2019 on the subjects of anaphylaxis, asthma, dermatitis, drug allergy, food allergy, immunodeficiency, immunotherapy, rhinitis/sinusitis, and urticaria/angioedema/mast cell disorders. Within each topic, practical aspects of diagnosis and management are emphasized. Treatments discussed include lifestyle modifications, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We designed this review to help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of their patients.

Factors that determine the loss of control when reducing therapy by steps in the treatment of moderate-severe asthma in standard clinical practice: A multicentre Spanish study

BACKGROUND

Although the clinical practice guidelines recommend continuous adjustment of asthma treatment and reducing the maintenance drugs when achieving control (step-down), there are few studies of standard clinical practice aimed at collecting information on the factors that determine step-down failure.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the factors that determine step-down failure in standard clinical practice of patients with moderate-severe asthma controlled by a combination of inhaled glucocorticoids and long-acting beta agonists.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective study included 374 patients with moderate-severe asthma controlled with inhaled glucocorticoids and long-acting beta agonists for whom the physician indicated a step-down in 2016.

RESULTS

The step-down failed in 41.7% of the patients. The following factors were related to failure: greater patient age (P=.006), presence of at least 2 comorbidities (P=.016), greater severity level (severe persistent vs. moderate persistent) (P<.001), greater age at diagnosis (>40 years) (P=.045), the higher the therapeutic step before (P=.003) and after the change (P<.001), the shorter the time of improvement/control prior to the change (P=.019), lower FEV₁ (P=.001) and a poorer Asthma Control Test score or Asthma Control Questionnaire score before the step-down (P<.001). The logistic regression analysis showed a higher probability of step-down failure in the more elderly patients (OR, 0.983; 95% CI 0.969-0.997) and those with severe asthma compared to those with moderate asthma (OR, 0.537; 95% CI 0.292-0.985), as well as an increased probability of success if the patients had the disease controlled for more than 6 months (OR, 2.253; 95% CI 1.235-4.112).

CONCLUSION

In standard clinical practice conditions, step-down fails in a high percentage of patients, and the suggestion is to indicate step-down when the patient has had more than 6 months of disease control.