Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Glucocorticoid in Black and Latinx Adults with Asthma

The Use of Albuterol/Budesonide as Reliever Therapy to Reduce Asthma Exacerbations

Prevention of asthma exacerbations and reduction of systemic corticosteroid burden remain unmet needs in asthma. US asthma guidelines recommend concomitant short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as an alternative reliever at step 2. The Food and Drug Administration approved a pressurized metered-dose inhaler containing albuterol and budesonide for as-needed treatment or prevention of bronchoconstriction and for reducing exacerbation risk in patients with asthma aged ≥18 years. This combination is approved for use as a reliever with or without maintenance therapy, but it is not indicated for maintenance therapy (or for single maintenance and reliever therapy). Intervening with as-needed SABA-ICS during the window of opportunity to reduce inflammation during loss of asthma control can reduce exacerbation risk, by exerting both genomic and nongenomic anti-inflammatory effects. We propose that the use of albuterol-budesonide rather than albuterol as a reliever to manage episodic symptoms driven by acute bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation can improve outcomes. This combination approach, shown to decrease asthma exacerbations and oral corticosteroid burden in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, represents a paradigm shift for asthma treatment in the United States. Further safety and efficacy studies should provide evidence that this type of reliever should be standard of care.

Asthma morbidity measures across Black ethnic subgroups

BACKGROUND

Black adults are disproportionately affected by asthma and are often considered a homogeneous group in research studies despite cultural and ancestral differences.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine if asthma morbidity differs across adults in Black ethnic subgroups.

METHODS

Adults with moderate-severe asthma were recruited across the continental United States and Puerto Rico for the PREPARE (PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief) trial. Using self-identifications, we categorized multiethnic Black (ME/B) participants (n = 226) as Black Latinx participants (n = 146) or Caribbean, continental African, or other Black participants (n = 80). African American (AA/B) participants (n = 518) were categorized as Black participants who identified their ethnicity as being American. Baseline characteristics and retrospective asthma morbidity measures (self-reported exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids [SCs], emergency department/urgent care [ED/UC] visits, hospitalizations) were compared across subgroups using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Compared with AA/B participants, ME/B participants were more likely to be younger, residing in the US Northeast, and Spanish speaking and to have lower body mass index, health literacy, and <1 comorbidity, but higher blood eosinophil counts. In a multivariable analysis, ME/B participants were significantly more likely to have ED/UC visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.04-1.72) and SC use (IRR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.00-1.62) for asthma than AA/B participants. Of the ME/B subgroups, Puerto Rican Black Latinx participants (n = 120) were significantly more likely to have ED/UC visits (IRR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.22-2.21) and SC use for asthma (IRR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06-1.92) than AA/B participants. There were no significant differences in hospitalizations for asthma among subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

ME/B adults, specifically Puerto Rican Black Latinx adults, have higher risk of ED/UC visits and SC use for asthma than other Black subgroups.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Preference for and impact of telehealth vs in-person asthma visits among Black and Latinx adults

BACKGROUND

Black and Latinx adults experience disproportionate asthma-related morbidity and limited specialty care access. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic expanded telehealth use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate visit type (telehealth [TH] vs in-person [IP]) preferences and the impact of visit type on asthma outcomes among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

For this PREPARE trial ancillary study, visit type preference was surveyed by e-mail or telephone post-trial. Emergency medical record data on visit types and asthma outcomes were available for a subset (March 2020 to April 2021). Characteristics associated with visit type preferences, and relationships between visit type and asthma outcomes (control [Asthma Control Test] and asthma-related quality of life [Asthma Symptom Utility Index]), were tested using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

A total of 866 participants consented to be surveyed, with 847 respondents. Among the participants with asthma care experience with both visit types, 42.0% preferred TH for regular checkups, which associated with employment (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.39; P = .02), lower asthma medication adherence (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = .03), and having more historical emergency department and urgent care asthma visits (OR = 1.10 for each additional visit; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18; P = .02), after adjustment. Emergency medical record data were available for 98 participants (62 TH, 36 IP). Those with TH visits were more likely Latinx, from the Southwest, employed, using inhaled corticosteroid-only controller therapy, with lower body mass index, and lower self-reported asthma medication adherence vs those with IP visits only. Both groups had comparable Asthma Control Test (18.4 vs 18.9, P = .52) and Asthma Symptom Utility Index (0.79 vs 0.84, P = .16) scores after adjustment.

CONCLUSION

TH may be similarly efficacious as and often preferred over IP among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, especially for regular checkups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02995733.

Patterns of rescue and maintenance therapy claims surrounding a clinical encounter for an asthma exacerbation

BACKGROUND

A "window of opportunity" has been proposed where anti-inflammatory therapy administration in response to symptoms could prevent exacerbation.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate rescue and maintenance therapy claims surrounding a severe asthma exacerbation serious enough to require a face-to-face clinical encounter.

METHODS

Merative MarketScan research databases (US administrative claims 2011 to 2017) were analyzed for patients aged ≥4 years, with an asthma diagnosis code, who filled short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) and Global Initiative for Asthma Steps 3 to 5 maintenance therapies. Patients were indexed on a random SABA claim and had 12 months' continuous health plan eligibility pre- and post-index. Serious exacerbations were severe exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids prescribed from an outpatient clinic, urgent care or emergency department, or hospitalization for asthma. SABA and maintenance claims 30 days pre- and post-event were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 319,342 patients (30% children 4 to 11 years; 70% adults or adolescents ≥12 years), 27.2% of children and 16.8% of adolescents or adults experienced ≥ 1 serious exacerbation (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.85 [95% confidence interval, 1.81-1.88]). In the 30 days pre-event, 42.6% filled ≥1 SABA (children: 44.3%; adolescents or adults: 41.5%; OR, 1.12 [1.09-1.16]) and 57.4% filled maintenance (children: 59.0%; adolescents or adults: 56.3%; OR, 1.12 [1.08-1.15]). In the 30 days post-event, 61.4% filled SABA (children: 69.7%; adolescents or adults: 55.6%; OR, 1.84 [1.78-1.90]) and 94.8% filled maintenance (children: 98.6%; adolescents or adults: 92.2%; OR, 6.09 [5.45-6.81]).

CONCLUSION

Many patients treated as having moderate-to-severe asthma escalate SABA claims before a serious exacerbation, but approximately 40% have no anti-inflammatory maintenance fill, highlighting a "window of opportunity" to prevent exacerbations using inhaled corticosteroids concomitantly with SABA as rescue.

European Respiratory Society short guidelines for the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma

Recent clinical trials of as-needed fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol have provided new evidence that may warrant a reconsideration of current practice. A Task Force was set up by the European Respiratory Society to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol as treatment for mild asthma. The Task Force defined two questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The Task Force utilised the outcomes to develop recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday clinical practice. The Task Force suggests that adults with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of regular ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed short-acting β2-antagonist (SABA) and that adolescents with mild asthma use either as-needed ICS/formoterol or ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed SABA (conditional recommendation; low certainty of evidence). The recommendation for adults places a relatively higher value on the reduction of systemic corticosteroid use and the outcomes related to exacerbations, and a relatively lower value on the small differences in asthma control. Either treatment option is suggested for adolescent patients as the balance is very close and data more limited. The Task Force recommends that adult and adolescent patients with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of as-needed SABA (strong recommendation; low certainty of evidence). This recommendation is based on the benefit of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma on several outcomes and the risks related to as-needed SABA in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. The implementation of this recommendation is hampered in countries (including European Union countries) where as-needed ICS/formoterol is not approved for mild asthma.

Beginning to Address an Implementation Gap in Asthma: Clinicians' Views of Prescribing Reliever Budesonide-Formoterol Inhalers and SMART in the United States

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Asthma and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recently made paradigm-shifting recommendations regarding inhaler management in asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma now recommends that combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol inhalers replace short-acting β-agonists as the preferred reliever therapy at all steps of asthma management. Although the most recent guidelines of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program did not review reliever ICS-formoterol usage in mild asthma, they similarly recommended single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) at steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. Despite these recommendations, many clinicians-particularly in the United States-are not prescribing new inhaler paradigms. Clinician-level reasons for this implementation gap remain largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To gain an in-depth understanding of the facilitators and barriers to prescribing reliever ICS-formoterol inhalers and SMART in the United States.

METHODS

Community and academic primary care providers, pulmonologists, and allergists who reported regularly caring for adults with asthma were interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, qualitatively coded, and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were continued until theme saturation.

RESULTS

Among 20 interviewed clinicians, only 6 clinicians described regularly prescribing ICS-formoterol inhalers as a reliever inhaler (either alone or within SMART). Significant barriers to new inhaler approaches included concerns surrounding a lack of Food and Drug Administration labeling for ICS-formoterol as a reliever therapy, a lack of awareness regarding a patient's formulary-preferred ICS-long-acting β-agonist choices, the high cost of combination inhalers, and time constraints. Facilitators to using new inhaler approaches included clinicians' beliefs that the latest inhaler recommendations are simpler and more congruent with real-world patients' behavior, and that a potential change in management strategy would offer a valuable opportunity for shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Although new guidelines exist in asthma, many clinicians described significant barriers to using them including medicolegal issues, pharmaceutical formulary confusion, and high drug costs. Nonetheless, most clinicians believed that the latest inhaler approaches would be more intuitive for their patients and would offer an opportunity for patient-centered collaboration and care. Stakeholders may find these results useful in future attempts to increase the real-world adoption of recent asthma recommendations.

Albuterol-Budesonide Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Asthma: Results of the DENALI Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 MANDALA trial, as-needed albuterol-budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler significantly reduced severe exacerbation risk vs as-needed albuterol in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing maintenance therapy. This study (DENALI) was conducted to address the US Food and Drug Administration combination rule, which requires a combination product to demonstrate that each component contributes to its efficacy.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do both albuterol and budesonide contribute to the efficacy of the albuterol-budesonide combination pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This phase 3 double-blind trial randomized patients aged ≥ 12 years with mild-to-moderate asthma 1:1:1:1:1 to four-times-daily albuterol-budesonide 180/160 μg or 180/80 μg, albuterol 180 μg, budesonide 160 μg, or placebo for 12 weeks. Dual-primary efficacy end points included change from baseline in FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (FEV1 AUC0-6h) over 12 weeks (assessing albuterol effect) and trough FEV1 at week 12 (assessing budesonide effect).

RESULTS

Of 1,001 patients randomized, 989 were ≥ 12 years old and evaluable for efficacy. Change from baseline in FEV1 AUC0-6h over 12 weeks was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 μg vs budesonide 160 μg (least-squares mean [LSM] difference, 80.7 [95% CI, 28.4-132.9] mL; P = .003). Change in trough FEV1 at week 12 was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 and 180/80 μg vs albuterol 180 μg (LSM difference, 132.8 [95% CI, 63.6-201.9] mL and 120.8 [95% CI, 51.5-190.1] mL, respectively; both P < .001). Day 1 time to onset and duration of bronchodilation with albuterol-budesonide were similar to those with albuterol. The albuterol-budesonide adverse event profile was similar to that of the monocomponents.

INTERPRETATION

Both monocomponents contributed to albuterol-budesonide lung function efficacy. Albuterol-budesonide was well tolerated, even at regular, relatively high daily doses for 12 weeks, with no new safety findings, supporting its use as a novel rescue therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03847896; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

A Discrete Choice Experiment to Assess Patient Preferences for Asthma Rescue Therapy and Disease Management

BACKGROUND

With the expanding treatment landscape for asthma, the process of identifying best-fit, individualized management options is becoming increasingly complicated. Understanding patients' preferences can inform shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

OBJECTIVES

To examine preferences of adults with asthma for therapeutic and management attributes and determine how these preferences vary among patients.

METHODS

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment survey in US adults with asthma. Patient preferences were analyzed using logit models. Factors affecting patients' preferences were identified by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,184 patients completed the survey (60% female; mean [SD] age, 49.2 [15.0] years). Patients most valued fewer asthma attacks requiring urgent health care professional visits, fewer exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids, and a reduced risk for oral thrush. Higher value was placed on reducing the risk of short-term (oral thrush) versus long-term side effects (diabetes). Patients were willing to increase rescue medication use in exchange for decreasing exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and attacks requiring urgent health care professional visits. Patients preferred a single inhaler for rescue and maintenance and least valued asthma action plans. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors affected patient preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients sought convenient management options that focused mainly on decreasing the short-term morbidity associated with asthma exacerbations and therapies. Preferences varied by demographics, clinical factors, and socioeconomics. It is important for shared decision-making discussions to include conversations about morbidity and how available therapeutic options align with individual patient preferences.

Evaluating as-needed inhaled corticosteroid strategies in asthma: expanding the benefits to mild asthma

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to regular anti-inflammatory treatment is commonly low, and short-acting β2 agonist (SABA) overuse is common in patients with asthma, leading to an increased risk of asthma-related adverse events.

AREAS COVERED

Given the pivotal role of inflammation in asthma, multiple as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies have been developed, leading to a reduction in asthma exacerbations and improvement in symptom control. Currently, as-needed ICS/formoterol is one of the most commonly available formulations; however, other combinations such as ICS/SABA have been shown to be superior to as-needed SABA alone. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive review of the available scientific literature to enhance the advantages and disadvantages of each combination in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

The future direction we foresee in asthma management consists in abandoning as-needed short-acting bronchodilators in favor of as-needed ICS-containing therapies. Each patient is unique and differs from others; consequently, a single option will not fit everyone. Patients' and physicians' awareness of this perspective can be reached through the development of multiple therapeutic options suitable for each condition that can be found in 'real life'.

Trust and virtual communication during the COVID-19 pandemic for adults with asthma from low-income neighborhoods: What have we learned?

BACKGROUND

Low-income and marginalized adults disproportionately bear the burden of poor asthma outcomes. One consequence of the structural racism that preserves these inequities is decreased trust in government and health care institutions.

OBJECTIVE

We examined whether such distrust extended to health care providers during the pandemic.

METHODS

We enrolled adults living in low-income neighborhoods who had required a hospitalization, an emergency department visit, or a prednisone course for asthma in the prior year. Trust was a dichotomized measure derived from a 5-item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale response. The items were translated to the binary variable "strong" versus "weak" trust. Communication was measured using a 13-item questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between communication and trust, controlling for potential confounders.

RESULTS

We enrolled 102 patients, aged 18 to 78 years; 87% were female, 90% were Black, 60% had some post-high school education, and 57% were receiving Medicaid. Of the 102 patients, 58 were enrolled before the March 12, 2020, pandemic start date, and 70 (69%) named doctors as their most trusted source of health information. Strong trust was associated with a negative response to the statement "It is hard to reach a person in my doctor's office by phone." There was no evidence of an association between the overall communication scores and trust. Satisfaction with virtual messaging was weaker among those with less trust.

CONCLUSIONS

These patients trust their physicians, value their advice, and need to have accessible means of communication.

Questions in Mild Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Patients with mild asthma are believed to represent the majority of patients with asthma. Disease-associated risks such as exacerbations, lung function decline, and death have been understudied in this patient population. There have been no prior efforts from major societies to describe research needs in mild asthma. Methods: A multidisciplinary, diverse group of 24 international experts reviewed the literature, identified knowledge gaps, and provided research recommendations relating to mild asthma definition, pathophysiology, and management across all age groups. Research needs were also investigated from a patient perspective, generated in conjunction with patients with asthma, caregivers, and stakeholders. Of note, this project is not a systematic review of the evidence and is not a clinical practice guideline. Results: There are multiple unmet needs in research on mild asthma driven by large knowledge gaps in all areas. Specifically, there is an immediate need for a robust mild asthma definition and an improved understanding of its pathophysiology and management strategies across all age groups. Future research must factor in patient perspectives. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in severe asthma, there remain innumerable research areas requiring urgent attention in mild asthma. An important first step is to determine a better definition that will accurately reflect the heterogeneity and risks noted in this group. This research statement highlights the topics of research that are of the highest priority. Furthermore, it firmly advocates the need for engagement with patient groups and for more support for research in this field.

Inhaled Corticosteroids Rarely Prescribed at Emergency Department Discharge Despite Low Rates of Follow-Up Care

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) prescription on emergency department (ED) discharge after acute asthma exacerbations.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify rates and predictors of ICS prescription at ED discharge. Secondary outcomes included ICS prescription rates in a high-risk subgroup, outpatient follow-up rates within 30 days, and variation in ICS prescriptions among attending emergency physicians.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult asthma ED discharges for acute asthma exacerbation across 5 urban academic hospitals. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate predictors of ICS prescription after adjusting for patient characteristics and hospital-level clustering.

RESULTS

Among 3948 adult ED visits, an ICS was prescribed in 6% (n = 238) of visits. Only 14% (n = 552) completed an outpatient visit within 30 days. Among patients with 2 or more ED visits in 12 months, the ICS prescription rate was 6.7%. ICS administration in the ED (odds ratio [OR] 9.91; 95% CI 7.99-12.28) and prescribing a β-agonist on discharge (OR 2.67; 95% CI 2.08-3.44) were associated with higher odds of ICS prescription. Decreased odds of ICS prescription were associated with Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.51-0.99) relative to Black race, and private (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62-0.91) or no insurance (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.35-0.84) relative to Medicaid. One-third (36%, n = 66) of ED attendings prescribed 0 ICS prescriptions during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

An ICS is infrequently prescribed on ED asthma discharge, and most patients do not have an outpatient follow-up within 30 days. Future studies should examine the extent to which ED ICS prescriptions improve outcomes for patients with barriers to accessing primary care.

The Moderating Role of Housing Quality on Concentrated Poverty and Asthma-Related Emergency Department Visits Among Hispanics/Latinos

Background. Rates of asthma-related emergency department visits have been shown to vary significantly by place (i.e., neighborhood) and race/ethnicity. The moderating factors of asthmatic events among Hispanic/Latino-specific populations are known to a much lesser degree. Objective. To assess the extent to which housing moderates the effect of poverty on Hispanic/Latino-specific asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits at an ecological level. Methods. Using data from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the 2016-2017 U.S. Census, a cross-sectional ecological analysis at the census tract-level was conducted. Crosswalk files from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development were used to associate zip codes to census tracts. Negative binomial regression was used to estimate rate ratios. Results. The effect of poverty on asthma-related ED visits was significantly moderated by the median year of housing structures built. The effect of mid-level poverty (RR= 1.57, 95% CI 1.27, 1.95) and high-level poverty (RR= 1.47, 95% CI 1.22, 1.78) in comparison to low-level poverty, was significantly greater among census tracts with housing built prior to 1965 in comparison to census tract with housing built between 1965-2020. Conclusion. Communities with older housing structures tend to be associated with increased Hispanic/Latino ED visits apart from affluent communities.

"As-Needed" Inhaled Corticosteroids for Patients With Asthma

Prevention of severe asthma exacerbations is a primary management goal for asthma across the severity spectrum. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) decrease the risk of asthma exacerbations, but patient adherence to ICS-containing medications as a daily maintenance therapy is poor, and many patients overuse short-acting beta2-agonist relievers; both are associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations and death. Airway inflammation also varies over time, influenced by exposures such as viral infections and allergen. As-needed ICS strategies, in which patients receive ICSs (or additional ICSs, if already taking controller therapy) whenever they take their reliever inhaler, empower patients to adjust their ICS intake in response to symptom fluctuation. These strategies can improve asthma morbidity outcomes, particularly by reducing severe exacerbations and reducing the risk of adverse effects of oral corticosteroids. In this review, the evidence for combination ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler, ICS and short-acting beta2-agonists in separate inhalers, and combination ICS-albuterol in a single inhaler is presented, along with practical considerations, evidence gaps, and implications for clinical practice for each strategy, presented by level of asthma severity and age group. Improving access to such strategies on a global scale is imperative to improve asthma outcomes and achieve equity across populations.

The ICS/Formoterol Reliever Therapy Regimen in Asthma: A Review

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol be preferred to short-acting beta₂-agonists as reliever therapy in adolescents and adults with asthma, across the range of asthma severity. This recommendation represents the most fundamental change in asthma management for many decades. In this commentary, we review the rationale for combination ICS/formoterol therapy, the evidence on which this recommendation has been made, the limitations in the evidence, the practical issues relevant to the implementation of ICS/formoterol reliever-based regimens in clinical practice, and the emerging evidence for the efficacy and safety of combination ICS/salbutamol reliever therapy regimens.

Comparing asthma control assessment using the Asthma Control Test and the Asthma APGAR in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx populations

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this analysis was to compare the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and the Asthma APGAR asthma control assessment tools in African-Ancestry/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

This pre-planned sub-study of the PREPARE clinical trial compares the baseline ACT and Asthma APGAR scores for the PREPARE populations using correlation coefficients, generalized linear modeling and receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses. Correlations were also assessed for both control tests and the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI).

RESULTS

Among the 1201 adults (603 AA/B and 598 H/L) with moderate to severe asthma, most had uncontrolled asthma by both the ACT and the Asthma APGAR. Correlation coefficients between the ACT, Asthma APGAR and ASUI were strong and did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity. The ACT consistently assessed more patients as uncontrolled compared with the Asthma APGAR. The differences in ACT and Asthma APGAR scores did not differ by age, gender, race/ethnicity, self-reported health literacy or medication adherence but did differ by education level. Both the ACT and Asthma APGAR had similar ROCs for predicting an asthma exacerbation in the next 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the ACT and the Asthma APGAR can be used for asthma control assessment in AA/B and H/L populations with moderate to severe asthma, providing comparable rates of uncontrolled asthma and similar limited ability to predict exacerbations. Further work is required to better understand the basis and clinical implications of the higher rates of uncontrolled asthma identified using the ACT.

Ensuring equitable access to guideline-based asthma care across the lifespan: Tips and future directions to the successful implementation of the new NAEPP 2020 guidelines, a Work Group Report of the AAAAI Asthma, Cough, Diagnosis, and Treatment Committee

The most recent recommendations from the 2020 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Update and Global Initiative for Asthma 2021 guide evidence-based clinical decision making. However, given the present state of health disparities by age, income, and race, the equitable implementation and dissemination of these guidelines will be unlikely without further guidance. This work group report reviews the current state of the new asthma guideline implementation; presents updated evidence-based therapeutic options with attention to specific patient populations; and addresses barriers to the implementation of these guidelines in minoritized, historically marginalized, and underresourced communities. Allergists and immunologists can use practical ways to accomplish the goals of improved asthma care access and advanced asthma care across the life span, with specific considerations to historically marginalized populations. Modifiable barriers to guideline implementation include financial barriers, environmental factors, and allergy subspecialty access and care coordination. Various programs to improve access to guideline-based asthma care include community programs, school-based asthma programs, and digital health solutions, with an emphasis on reducing disparities by race.

Value-Based, Cost-Effective Care: The Role of the Allergist-Immunologist

Asthma and allergic disease impact millions of patients and are associated with high costs. Up to 30% of all medical care involves wasted spending. Across the spectrum of care provided by the allergist-immunologist, there are opportunities to improve value and reduce medical waste. Several examples highlight this reality. Evidence suggests that most patients may receive cost-effective care in the management of chronic spontaneous urticaria without the need for laboratory testing. For patients with asthma, although a single maintenance and reliever therapy approach may be cost-effective, insurance-mandated therapy changes are not, and may harm patients. Biologics may be very effective in improving asthma control but are too expensive for this indication-as demonstrated by cost-effectiveness analyses and highlighted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review, which concluded that the value-based price for asthma biologics ranges between $6500 and 14,3000 per year. Early introduction may prevent food allergy, but screening before first introduction is neither necessary nor cost-effective, although early salvage food oral immunotherapy may result in improved quality of life and cost savings. Evidence does not support the presence of allergic disease as a risk factor for anaphylaxis to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and risk-stratified vaccination approaches do not appear cost-effective. Allergen immunotherapy is a very cost-effective treatment option. The practice of allergy-immunology has continued to evolve in recent years and can provide a leading example of high-value practice.

Asthma Management in Adults

Management of asthma in adults has advanced in the past 10 years. Central to these advances has been further clarification of type (T) 2 mechanisms of airway inflammation and utilization of T2 biomarkers, that is, eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. In addition, epithelial cells are emerging as significant contributors to inflammation through generation of alarmins to initiate local injury as well as downstream pathways. Five new biologics, mepolizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, were approved to join omalizumab and revolutionize severe asthma treatment. These biologics significantly prevent exacerbations to spare systemic corticosteroids use and their side effects. Guidelines attest to the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β-agonists (formoterol) for both maintenance and rescue therapy. Focused updates to the Expert Panel Report addressed limited but specific questions relevant to asthma control. Future guidelines should include phenotype/endotype-directed therapeutics to gain more precision-directed treatment.

Assessing Healthcare Professionals’ Identification of Paediatric Dermatological Conditions in Darker Skin Tones

The impacts of the lack of skin tone diversity in medical education images on healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients are not well studied. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic knowledge of HCPs and correlate this with confidence and training resources used. An online multiple choice quiz was developed. The participants’ demographics, training resources and self-confidence in diagnosing skin conditions were collected. The differences in the results between the subgroups and the correlations between the respondents’ experience, self-reported confidence and quiz results were assessed. The mean score of 432 international participants was 5.37 (SD 1.75) out of a maximum of 10 (highest score). Eleven percent (n = 47) reached the 80% pass mark. Subanalysis showed no difference by the continent (p = 0.270), ethnicity (p = 0.397), profession (p = 0.599), training resources (p = 0.198) or confidence (p = 0.400). A significance was observed in the specialty (p = 0.01). A weak correlation between experience and confidence (Spearman’s ρ = 0.286), but no correlation between scores and confidence or experience (ρ = 0.087 and 0.076), was observed. Of diagnoses, eczema was recognised in 40% and meningococcal rash in 61%. This is the first study assessing the identification of paediatric skin conditions in different skin tones internationally. The correct identification of common/important paediatric conditions was poor, suggesting a possible difference in knowledge across skin tones. There is an urgent need to improve the representation of all skin tones to ensure equity in patient care.

Advances in Evaluation and Treatment of Severe Asthma (Part Two)

Providers caring for patients with severe, therapy-resistant asthma have novel options for their treatment. Administration of additional inhaled corticosteroids at the time of increased symptoms, a strategy referred to as anti-inflammatory rescue or AIR, has been proved to be effective in reducing the frequency of exacerbations and improving asthma-related quality of life. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists can be used in combination with long-acting beta-agonist bronchodilators for additional bronchodilation. The care of the patient with severe asthma must also include a strategy to help avoid severe, life-threatening asthma attacks, with intense patient education and a recommended survival toolkit.

Brand-name market exclusivity for nebulizer therapy to treat asthma and COPD

Nebulizer therapy is a cornerstone treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We collected and analyzed all patents and regulatory exclusivities on brand-name nebulizer solutions approved for asthma and COPD from 1986–2020, quantified periods of protection from generic competition, and compared the patenting strategies employed by manufacturers of nebulizer versus inhaler therapy. The median duration of expected protection from generic competition for brand-name nebulizer solutions (n=13) was 7 years (after subtracting time lost to early generic entry), compared to 14 years for inhalers (n=53). Through the end of 2020, brand-name nebulizers faced generic competition for 62% of all follow-up time compared to 0.5% for inhalers. Unlike inhaler manufacturers, which relied heavily on device patents to build extensive patent thickets, manufacturers of nebulizer solutions listed fewer patents overall and relied more on non-device patents. Regulatory reform is critical to help ensure that patients have access to affordable inhaled medications.

Albuterol-Budesonide Fixed-Dose Combination Rescue Inhaler for Asthma

BACKGROUND

As asthma symptoms worsen, patients typically rely on short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) rescue therapy, but SABAs do not address worsening inflammation, which leaves patients at risk for severe asthma exacerbations. The use of a fixed-dose combination of albuterol and budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication might reduce the risk of severe asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

We conducted a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, randomized, event-driven trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol-budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies, which were continued throughout the trial. Adults and adolescents (≥12 years of age) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three trial groups: a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 160 μg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg and 80 μg, respectively [the higher-dose combination group]), a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 80 μg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg and 40 μg, respectively [the lower-dose combination group]), or 180 μg of albuterol (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg [the albuterol-alone group]). Children 4 to 11 years of age were randomly assigned to only the lower-dose combination group or the albuterol-alone group. The primary efficacy end point was the first event of severe asthma exacerbation in a time-to-event analysis, which was performed in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

A total of 3132 patients underwent randomization, among whom 97% were 12 years of age or older. The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower, by 26%, in the higher-dose combination group than in the albuterol-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The hazard ratio in the lower-dose combination group, as compared with the albuterol-alone group, was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.00; P = 0.052). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the three trial groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower with as-needed use of a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 160 μg of budesonide than with as-needed use of albuterol alone among patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving a wide range of inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies. (Funded by Avillion; MANDALA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03769090.).