Asthma control and concordance of opinions between patients and pulmonologists

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).

Defining response to therapy with biologics in severe asthma: from global evaluation to super response and remission

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, monoclonal antibodies targeting Type-2 inflammatory pathways have been developed for severe asthma treatment. However, even when patients are carefully selected, the response to treatment varies.

AREAS COVERED

Different studies have evaluated response to therapy with biologics such as exacerbation reduction, symptom improvement, pulmonary function increase, improvement in QoL, or decrease of oral corticosteroids, showing that all patients do not respond to all disease aspects and leading to an extensive debate regarding the definition of response.

EXPERT OPINION

Assessing response to therapy is of great importance, but since there is no uniform definition of treatment response, the recognition of patients who really benefit from these therapies remains an unmet need. In the same context, identifying non-responding patients in which biologic therapy should be switched or substituted by alternative treatment options is of paramount importance. In this review, we present the road trip of the definition of therapeutic response to biologics in severe asthmatics by presenting the current relevant medical literature. We also present the suggested predictors of response, with an emphasis on the so-called super-responders. Finally, we discuss the recent insights regarding asthma remission as a feasible treatment goal and provide a simple algorithm for the evaluation of response.

Patient perspectives of the influence of severe and non‐severe asthma on their quality of life: A national survey of asthma patients in Spain

Introduction

Little is known about adult asthma patients' perspective of their disease burden. This study aimed to obtain a comprehensive picture of patient needs, evaluate their knowledge, source of information, and perception of the severity of their asthma, and compare these variables between severe (SA) and non‐severe (NSA) asthma patients.

Methods

We conducted an online cross‐sectional survey in Spain among asthma patients aged ≥18 years. A bespoke questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic data, asthma characteristics, treatments, disease burden, patient's perception of disease severity, and asthma information sources. Patients were classified as SA and NSA according to GINA 2020 treatment steps recommendations. To compare populations, 600 participants (200 SA and 400 NSA) were randomly selected to complete the survey.

Results

Participants were mostly women, mean age >38 years. SA patients underestimated the severity of their asthma; 52% judged it as mild, and only 2% considered their asthma severe. Overall, 50% of NSA and 96% of SA patients had experienced ≥1 exacerbation the previous year (p < 0.001). Fewer asthma exacerbations (SA) and improved quality of life (QoL) (NSA) were the most frequently expected therapy outcomes. NSA patients believe that asthma impacts their daily life (37%) and worsens QoL (34%) to a lesser degree than SA (67% and 59%, respectively; p < 0.001). Patient‐preferred sources of information were specialists (NSA:42%; SA: 38%) and primary care physicians (NSA: 41%; SA: 33%).

Conclusions

Despite the effective therapies currently available, the results of this study still show a significant emotional burden and QoL impairment in patients with severe asthma.

Differing perceptions of asthma control and treatment effectiveness by patients with severe asthma and treating subspecialists in the United States

Objective: For patients with severe asthma (SA), overestimation of asthma control may lead to poorer outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess concurrent patient and specialist assessments of asthma control and treatment effectiveness among a large US cohort of SA patients.Methods: CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Asthma control was assessed using the patient-completed Asthma Control Test™ (ACT™) and specialist clinical assessment of control. Treatment effectiveness was measured using the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) completed by patients and specialists.Results: 1109 patients who completed online surveys at enrollment were included. 14%, 28%, 25%, and 33% of patients had ACT™ scores of 5-9, 10-15, 16-19, and 20-25, respectively. Compared with 67% of patients with uncontrolled asthma by ACT™, 44% were uncontrolled by specialist assessment. 54% of patients who were uncontrolled according to the ACT™ were rated as controlled by specialists, demonstrating overestimation of asthma control. Based on ACT™ score, asthma control was more frequent among patients treated with biologics compared to other treatments. Using the GETE, 90% of patients reported treatment effectiveness compared with 71% of specialists. Patient and specialist treatment effectiveness categorizations agreed for 73%.Conclusion: Specialists commonly overestimated asthma control relative to ACT™ scores. Patients reported treatment effectiveness more frequently than specialists. These findings emphasize the importance of validated instruments to assess asthma control and reduce potential treatment gaps associated with patient-specialist discordance.

Physician-Patient Concordance in the Assessment of Asthma Control

BACKGROUND

Discordance between physicians' and patients' perceptions of asthma control may negatively impact symptom control, treatment, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate concordance between physicians' and patients' perceptions of overall asthma control and the association between perceived overall control and individual components of control.

METHODS

U.S. survey data (Dec 2015-Feb 2016; Apr-Aug 2018) from the Respiratory Disease Specific Programme were analyzed. Physicians recorded patient disease characteristics and their perception of patients' asthma control. Patients' perception of control was assessed using the Asthma Control Test; responses were compared with level of symptom control per the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria and Work Productivity and Impairment questionnaire responses. Agreement and association were assessed by weighted kappa (κ) and Spearman rho (ρ), respectively.

RESULTS

The study included 1,288 patients. Concordance between physician-perceived and patient-perceived asthma control in the prior 4 weeks was moderate (κ = 0.4951). Association between physicians' overall perception of asthma control and patients' overall Asthma Control Test score was also moderate (ρ = 0.5450). However, 61.5% of patients with self-reported, well-controlled asthma had shortness of breath 1 to 2 times/wk, 45.6% had 1 to 2 night-time awakenings/wk, and patients reported a mean (SD) daily activity impairment of 17.5% (16.2%). Only 21.8% of patients with self-reported, well-controlled asthma were classified as such by Global Initiative for Asthma symptom criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' self-assessment of overall control does not accurately characterize the true level of control; thus, patients and physicians may benefit from working together to assess the individual components of asthma control to achieve better disease management, treatment decisions, and improved outcomes.

Comparability of asthma control test scores between self and physician-administered test

BACKGROUND

The Asthma Control Test (ACT) is a tool that allows physicians to estimate the control of asthma symptoms on each patient in a quick way.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective single-center observational study enrolling 97 patients with asthma, selected from the Outpatient Respiratory Service of "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele" in Catania. Patients answered the ACT in full autonomy. Subsequently, the physician, blinded to the previous ACT evaluation, administered a new ACT and then assessed patients' medical condition during his/her visit. A second physician evaluated patients' level of symptom control according to GINA guidelines. Agreement in ACT score was analyzed using the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) for ACT individual items and overall score. The impact of different education levels on the ACT was analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test.

MAIN FINDINGS

There was no significant difference in ACT total score obtained by either administration mode (p > 0.05). Responses to ACT single items showed a statistically significant difference between patients with lower and higher education levels in ACT items n°3 and 5, (p < 0.05), with lower education levels influencing patients symptom perception and disease control. Moreover, a significant difference in the evaluation of asthma control was found between ACT and GINA assessment of symptom control (p < 0.05).

Observational vignette study to examine patient and healthcare provider perceived impact of asthma-related exacerbations in the US

Background

Little is known about how patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive the impact of asthma-related exacerbations. This study examined the impact of asthma-related exacerbations on patients’ lives from these different perspectives.

Methods

Web-based surveys were administered to a US sample of adult patients with asthma, and HCPs. Participants reviewed six vignettes describing two hypothetical patients with asthma (25-year-old/single/unemployed/no dependents; and 45-year-old/married/employed/two young children) experiencing mild, moderate, or severe exacerbations and rated the impact on eight measures: EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), sleep, household costs, and medical costs. The proportions reporting impact for each measure were calculated for each vignette; and patient responses were compared with HCP responses.

Results

302 patients with asthma and 300 HCPs completed the survey. As exacerbation severity increased, a higher proportion of patients and HCPs reported impact of exacerbations on patients with asthma. Compared with HCPs, a greater proportion of patients reported problems with pain/discomfort related to mild and moderate exacerbations. Compared with patients, HCPs were more likely to indicate sleep impact, mobility problems, and financial burden across all exacerbation severity levels; self-care problems with moderate and severe exacerbations; and problems with usual activities and anxiety/depression for severe exacerbations.

Conclusions

Understanding the distinctions between how patients and HCPs perceive the impact of exacerbations is important for optimizing patient care. HCPs may be less aware of patient’s concerns about exacerbation-related pain/discomfort. Studies are needed to further understand patient-HCP interactions regarding asthma-related exacerbations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40248-019-0196-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development and initial validation of the Asthma Severity Scoring System (ASSESS)

BACKGROUND

Tools for quantification of asthma severity are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to develop a continuous measure of asthma severity, the Asthma Severity Scoring System (ASSESS), for adolescents and adults, incorporating domains of asthma control, lung function, medications, and exacerbations.

METHODS

Baseline and 36-month longitudinal data from participants in phase 3 of the Severe Asthma Research Program (NCT01606826) were used. Scale properties, responsiveness, and a minimally important difference were determined. External replication was performed in participants enrolled in the Severe Asthma Research Program phase 1/2. The utility of ASSESS for detecting treatment response was explored in participants undergoing corticosteroid responsiveness testing with intramuscular triamcinolone and participants receiving biologics.

RESULTS

ASSESS scores ranged from 0 to 20 (8.78 ± 3.9; greater scores reflect worse severity) and differed among 5 phenotypic groups. Measurement properties were acceptable. ASSESS was responsive to changes in quality of life with a minimally important difference of 2, with good specificity for outcomes of asthma improvement and worsening but poor sensitivity. Replication analyses yielded similar results, with a 2-point decrease (improvement) associated with improvements in quality of life. Participants with a 2-point or greater decrease (improvement) in ASSESS scores also had greater improvement in lung function and asthma control after triamcinolone, but these differences were limited to phenotypic clusters 3, 4, and 5. Participants treated with biologics also had a 2-point or greater decrease (improvement) in ASSESS scores overall.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASSESS tool is an objective measure that might be useful in epidemiologic and clinical research studies for quantification of treatment response in individual patients and phenotypic groups. However, validation studies are warranted.

Four seasons of Czech asthma study: asthma characteristics and management reality in the Czech Republic

Objective: To describe the characteristics and management of asthma in clinical practice in the Czech Republic in the context of international guidelines and clinical realities.Methods: Data were collected over four seasons from summer 2016 to spring 2017 and are mostly presented using descriptive statistics.Results: We obtained valid data for 4557 adult patients with asthma, including detailed phenotyping (71% eosinophilic allergic, 10% eosinophilic non-allergic, 19% non-eosinophilic non-allergic asthma) from 58 allergologists and 56 pulmonologists. The average time to diagnosis was 3 years. In more than half of the subjects, bronchodilator testing (BDT) results were available at primary diagnosis. More than 10% of physicians did not test for mold allergy. Occupational asthma was diagnosed in 0.7% of subjects. According to the attending physician, 68% of patients had well-controlled and 10% had uncontrolled asthma. Ninety-four percent of patients were on preventive treatment, with 91% using an inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at an average dose of 705 µg/day budesonide equivalent. Approximately 75% of patients were on an ICS/LABA, with 91% using fixed combinations. Among patients using ICS/formoterol, a maintenance and reliever therapy regime was prescribed in 67%.Conclusions: The quality of asthma management in the Czech Republic is comparable to that of other developed countries and better in some respects (frequent BDT, phenotyping, and use of preventive treatment). Nevertheless, there is unnecessary delay in diagnosis and lack of research on possible environmental causes (workplace, molds). Pharmacotherapy shows good adherence to guidelines. Although 10% of patients show poor control, there is concurrently a trend for overtreatment.

Factors Associated with Physician-Patient Discordance in the Perception of Asthma Control

BACKGROUND

Physicians' perception of asthma control has a direct impact on treatment options and patients' outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the differences between patients and their physicians in the perception of asthma control. Moreover, factors associated with this discordance were explored.

METHODS

A multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted in patients visiting primary or secondary facilities for routine asthma reviews. Before the review, patients completed the 5-iteam Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) under the supervision of a medical staff. Physicians recorded their perception of the patients' asthma control without viewing the ACQ results. After the review, physicians completed the demographic and clinical data.

RESULTS

A total of 1697 patients were included. ACQ results showed that asthma was well controlled in 52.2% of the patients, but physicians perceived that 79.6% of patients were well controlled. The concordance analyzed by the kappa index was weak (0.27). The discordant physician-patient pairs had significantly worse ACQ scores than the concordant pairs (P < .0001), but the use of neither inhaled corticosteroids nor other controller medications showed any differences between the groups. In a multivariate model, ACQ score of 0.75 or more and lack of lung function assessment within the previous 6 months were independently associated with the physician-patient discordance in the perception of asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

The subjective perception of the physicians did not show a good agreement with the patients' asthma control based on validated ACQ scores, with increased rates of discordance among patients whose asthma was not well controlled and patients who had not received lung function assessment.

Concordance of opinions between patients and physicians and their relationship with symptomatic control and future risk in patients with moderate-severe asthma

Introduction

Differences between the opinions of patients and physicians on the impact of asthma are common. We hypothesised that patient–physician discordance may negatively affect asthma outcome.

Methods

A total of 2902 patients (61% women, mean age 47 years) with moderate–severe asthma and 231 physicians participated in a prospective study. At the baseline visit, data on demographics, clinical variables, degree of asthma control according to the Asthma Control Test (ACT), basic spirometry and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were collected and an ad hoc questionnaire was completed that allowed the degree of concordance between doctors and patients to be assessed. A scheduled telephone call after 3 months was used to elicit the ACT score and the future risk of asthma. At the final visit at 6 months, the following data were recorded: ACT score, spirometry, HADS score and an ad hoc questionnaire to assess the agreement between the doctor and the patient. Changes in study variables according to patient–physician concordance or discordance were analysed.

Results

The rate of patient–physician discordance was 27.2%, with overestimation of disease impact by the physician in 12.3% and underestimation in 14.9%. Patient–physician opinion discordance, particularly in the case of physicians underestimating the impact of asthma, showed worse results with statistically significant differences in ACT score, a higher percentage of patients with poor asthma control and lower HADS scores. The need for hospital and emergency department admissions was also higher.

Conclusion

Patient–physician opinion discordance may be contributing to lower symptomatic control and increased future risk, with a higher impact when physicians underestimate the impact of asthma on their patients.

Determination of asthma control using administrative data regarding short-acting beta-agonist inhaler purchase

BACKGROUND

Symptom control is a primary goal in asthma. We hypothesized that administrative data regarding rescue inhaler purchases may correlate with asthma symptom control.

METHODS

We identified all patients who purchased short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) inhalers during the course of one year in the database of a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO). Primary physicians identified asthma patients and classified their asthma symptom control into three groups according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Asthma patients were asked to answer symptom questionnaires and grade their asthma control. SABA inhaler purchases were compared between asthma control groups as classified by the guidelines, the physicians and the patients. We also compared the agreement on asthma control between the three methods of classification.

RESULTS

Of 241 asthma patients, 83 completed the questionnaires. Using the GINA guidelines criteria, 26 were symptom controlled, 46 were partially controlled and 11 were uncontrolled. SABA inhaler purchases were not significantly lower in the controlled group. Using patients' overall impression of their asthma control, the mean numbers of SABA inhalers purchased were 1.5, 4.4 and 6.4 per year in the controlled, partially controlled and uncontrolled groups, respectively (p = 0.03). Patients' classification of asthma control had better agreement (kappa = 0.34) with GINA guidelines than physician's' agreement (kappa = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

When using administrative data for asthma patients, 2 or more SABA inhaler purchases in one year should alert the physician for the need for asthma control evaluation. Purchase of at least 4 SABA inhalers a year may be regarded as a marker for asthma that is not controlled.

Asthma control: how it can be best assessed?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A control-based asthma assessment is recommended by guidelines, but questions remain about how to assess the level of asthma control, and how current control status relates to future risks and biomarkers of disease pathogenesis. This review summarizes recent published data relating to asthma control and describes the challenges created by currently available instruments.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current literature continues to show the widespread use of various assessment instruments for asthma control, in particular those with composite scores. However, poor correlations exist between the different assessment tools, and these instruments lack diagnostic accuracy to differentiate uncontrolled asthma. Whereas the concept of asthma control has been extended to add an assessment of future risks to the clinical control, clinical asthma control as measured by current available assessment tools does not necessary relate to the intrinsic disease activity which is typically characterized by inflammation in asthma.

SUMMARY

The application of asthma control assessment represents an improvement in asthma management. The measurement of underlying disease activity potentially by biomarkers to assess disease control will lead to an improved assessment of the overall control of asthma, and further studies addressing this are needed.

Factors associated with severe uncontrolled asthma and the perception of control by physicians and patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite current treatments, more than half of patients with asthma are not controlled. The objective was to evaluate the correlation between control perceived by patients and physicians, compared with control evaluated according to criteria of the Spanish Guidelines for Asthma Management (GEMA), and to investigate the factors associated with that control.

METHODS

Multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study including 343 patients with severe persistent asthma according to GEMA criteria seen in the Department of Pulmonology and Allergology. The correlation between asthma control perceived by the patient, the physician and according to clinical judgment based on the GEMA criteria was calculated, and a multivariate analysis was used to determine variables related to the perception of asthma control.

RESULTS

According to GEMA criteria, only 10.2% of patients were well controlled, 27.7% had partial control and 62.1% were poorly controlled. Both the physicians and the patients overestimated control: 75.8% and 59.3% of patients had controlled asthma according to the patient and the physician, respectively, and were not controlled according to GEMA (P<.0001). Patients with uncontrolled asthma according GEMA had higher body mass index (P=.006) and physical inactivity (P=.016). Factors associated with a perceived lack of control by both physicians and patients were: nocturnal awakenings (≥ 1 day/week), frequent use of rescue medication (≥ 5 days/week) and significant limitation in activities. Discrepant factors between physicians and patients were dyspnea and emergency room visits (patients only), FEV1 ≤ 80% and a poorer understanding of the disease by the patient (physicians only).

CONCLUSIONS

Only 10% of patients with severe asthma evaluated in this study are controlled according to GEMA criteria. Patients and physicians overestimate control and the overestimation by patients is greater. Physical inactivity and obesity are associated with a lack of control according to GEMA.