Search

Background: Elevated sputum eosinophil counts predict asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids but are impractical to measure in primary care. We investigated the relation between blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma outcomes for a large UK cohort., Methods: This historical cohort study used anonymised medical record data to identify primary care patients with asthma aged 12-80 years with 2 years of continuous records, including 1 year before (baseline) and 1 year after (outcome) their most recent eosinophil count. Negative binomial regression was used to compare outcome exacerbation rates and logistic regression to compare odds of asthma control for patients with blood eosinophil counts of 400 cells per μL or less versus greater than 400 cells per μL, adjusting for age, sex, body-mass index, smoking status, and Charlson comorbidity index. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02140541., Findings: Overall, 20 929 (16%) of 130 248 patients had blood eosinophil counts greater than 400 cells per μL. During the outcome year, these patients experienced significantly more severe exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 1·42, 95% CI 1·36-1·47) and acute respiratory events (RR 1·28, 1·24-1·33) than those with counts of 400 cells per μL or less. They also had significantly lower odds of achieving overall asthma control (OR 0·74, 95% CI 0·72-0·77), defined as limited reliever use and no asthma-related hospital attendance or admission, acute course of oral corticosteroids, or prescription for antibiotics. Exacerbation rates increased progressively with nine ascending categories of blood eosinophil count as compared with a reference category of 200 cells per μL or less., Interpretation: Patients with asthma and blood eosinophil counts greater than 400 cells per μL experience more severe exacerbations and have poorer asthma control. Furthermore, a count-response relation exists between blood eosinophil counts and asthma-related outcomes. Blood eosinophil counts could add predictive value to Global Initiative for Asthma control-based risk assessment., Funding: Teva Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Beclometasone dipropionate is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) available in both extrafine and larger-particle hydrofluoroalkane formulations. Extrafine beclometasone has greater small airway distribution and inhalation technique tolerance than larger-particle beclometasone; therefore, its use may be associated with improved asthma outcomes at population levels. The study objective was to compare real-life effectiveness of extrafine and larger-particle beclometasone., Methods: Retrospective matched cohort study including primary care patients with asthma (ages 12-60 and non-smokers 61-80 years) prescribed extrafine or larger-particle beclometasone by metered-dose inhaler. We studied patients receiving their first ICS (initiation population, n = 11,289) or switched from another ICS without dose change (switch population, n = 19,065). The extrafine and larger-particle beclometasone cohorts were matched in each population for demographic and database measures of asthma control during a baseline year; and endpoints assessed during 1 outcome year were adjusted for residual confounding factors., Results: The odds of no loss of asthma control (no asthma-related hospital attendance, consultation for lower respiratory tract infection, or oral corticosteroids) were significantly higher in the extrafine beclometasone cohorts of both initiation population (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.12; 95% CI 1.02-1.23) and switch population (aOR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01-1.19). The odds of better adherence to ICS therapy were also significantly higher in both extrafine beclometasone cohorts (initiation population, aOR 1.64; 95% CI 1.52-1.75 and switch population, aOR 1.35; 95% CI 1.27-1.43)., Conclusions: These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that delivery of beclometasone in extrafine particle size produces real-life asthma treatment benefits. Clinical trials no. NCT01400217., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Selection of inhaler device type appears to influence real-world effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but data are lacking on the role of inhaler device in ICS and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy for asthma., Methods: This retrospective matched cohort study compared 1-year asthma outcomes for UK patients initiating fixed-dose combination (FDC) fluticasone-salmeterol delivered by pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus dry powder inhaler (DPI). Patients with asthma aged 4-80 years receiving a first prescription for FDC fluticasone-salmeterol by pMDI or DPI were matched on baseline demographic and asthma severity measures. Co-primary outcomes were asthma control (a composite measure comprising no recorded hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory infection) and exacerbation rate., Results: Compared with the DPI cohort (n = 1567), patients in the pMDI cohort (n = 1567) had significantly greater odds of achieving asthma control during the outcome year (odds ratio [OR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.40). Exacerbation rate was lower but not significantly in the pMDI cohort (adjusted rate ratio for pMDI cohort, 0.82; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.00). The odds of treatment success (defined as no exacerbations and no change in asthma therapy) was significantly greater in the pMDI cohort (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42)., Conclusions: For UK primary care patients, pMDIs appear to achieve better asthma control outcomes than DPIs for delivery of FDC fluticasone-salmeterol. Pragmatic trials are needed to further investigate real-world outcomes with different inhaler devices for combination therapy., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Achieving asthma control remains an elusive goal for the majority of patients worldwide. Ensuring a correct diagnosis of asthma is the first step in assessing poor symptom control; this requires returning to the basics of history taking and physical examination, in conjunction with lung function measurement when appropriate. A number of factors may contribute to sub-optimal asthma control. Concomitant rhinitis, a common co-pathology and contributor to poor control, can often be identified by asking a simple question. Smoking too has been identified as a cause of poor asthma control. Practical barriers such as poor inhaler technique must be addressed. An appreciation of patients' views and concerns about maintenance asthma therapy can help guide discussion to address perceptual barriers to taking maintenance therapy (doubts about personal necessity and concerns about potential adverse effects). Further study into, and a greater consideration of, factors and patient characteristics that could predict individual responses to asthma therapies are needed. Finally, more clinical trials that enrol patient populations reflecting the real world diversity of patients seen in clinical practice, including wide age ranges, presence of comorbidities, current smoking, and differing ethnic origins, will contribute to better individual patient management.