Publications (17)110.8 Total impact
-
Article: Real-life comparison of beclometasone dipropionate as an extrafine- or larger-particle formulation for asthma.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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.Respiratory medicine 05/2013; · 2.33 Impact Factor -
Article: Asthma outcomes and costs of therapy with extrafine beclomethasone and fluticasone.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Characteristics of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) differ, but data comparing the real-life effectiveness of various ICSs for asthma are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare real-life asthma outcomes and costs of extrafine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone and fluticasone administered through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study examined database markers of asthma control from a large US longitudinal health care claims database over 1 baseline and 1 outcome year for 10,312 patients with asthma aged 12 to 80 years receiving their first ICS as HFA-beclomethasone or fluticasone and matched on baseline demographic characteristics and asthma severity. RESULTS: Patients started on HFA-beclomethasone had significantly higher odds (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI; 1.08-1.31) of achieving overall control (risk and impairment), which was defined as no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection and less than 2 puffs per day of short-acting β-agonist; they also experienced a lower rate of respiratory-related hospitalizations or referrals (adjusted rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93) than patients started on fluticasone. Other database outcome measures were similar in the 2 cohorts. Prescribed HFA-beclomethasone doses were lower (P < .001) than fluticasone doses (median, 320 μg/d [interquartile range, 160-320 μg/d] vs 440 μg/d [interquartile range, 176-440 μg/d]). Adjusted respiratory-related health care costs were significantly lower for HFA-beclomethasone than fluticasone (mean, $1869 [95% CI, $1727-$2032] vs $2259 [95% CI, $2111-$2404]), representing a mean annual savings of $390 (95% CI, $165-$620) per patient prescribed HFA-beclomethasone rather than fluticasone. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma treatment outcomes were similar or better with HFA-beclomethasone prescribed at significantly lower doses and with lower costs than fluticasone.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 04/2013; · 9.17 Impact Factor -
Article: Characteristics of patients preferring once-daily controller therapy for asthma and COPD: a retrospective cohort study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patient preference is an important factor when choosing an inhaler device for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). AIMS: To identify characteristics of patients with asthma or COPD who prefer a once-daily controller medication regimen. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used electronic patient records and linked outcomes from patient-completed questionnaires in a primary care database. We compared the characteristics of patients indicating a preference for once-daily therapy with those who were unsure or indicating no preference. RESULTS: Of 3,731 patients with asthma, 2,174 (58%) were women; the mean age was 46 years (range 2-94). Of 2,138 patients with COPD, 980 (46%) were women; the mean age was 70 years (range 35-98). Approximately half of the patients in each cohort indicated once-daily preference, one-quarter were unsure, and one-quarter did not prefer once-daily therapy. In patients with asthma or COPD, the preference for once-daily controller medication was significantly associated with poor adherence and higher concerns about medication. In asthma, good control and low self-perceived controller medication need were associated with once-daily preference. By contrast, in COPD, a high self-perceived need for controller medication was associated with once-daily preference. There was no significant relationship between once-daily preference and age, sex, disease severity, or exacerbation history. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding patient preferences may help prescribers to individualise therapy better for asthma and COPD.Primary care respiratory journal: journal of the General Practice Airways Group 03/2013; -
Article: Efficacy versus effectiveness trials: informing guidelines for asthma management.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Randomized controlled trials, known as efficacy trials and long considered the gold standard for evidence-based asthma guidelines, are designed to test whether interventions have a benefit for selective patient populations under ideal conditions. The goal of pragmatic trials and observational studies instead is to understand real-life efficacy, known as effectiveness. This review summarizes the strengths and limitations of efficacy and effectiveness trials, results of recent effectiveness trials in asthma and initiatives promoting effectiveness research. Recent pragmatic trials and observational studies have examined outcomes of interventions for diverse real-life patient populations, including smokers and patients with variable adherence, inhaler technique and baseline asthma control. Study results challenge practice guidelines regarding relative effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS); supplement guidelines with regard to effectiveness of interventions in smokers; and begin to address gaps in guidelines regarding choice of ICS and inhaler device. Initiatives are ongoing to refine methods of observational research and to harmonize asthma outcomes for better integration of results from all types of trials. Results of pragmatic trials and observational studies are an important component of the evidence needed to inform guideline recommendations and decision-making by healthcare providers, patients and policymakers.Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 02/2013; 13(1):50-7. · 4.11 Impact Factor -
Article: Effectiveness of same versus mixed asthma inhaler devices: a retrospective observational study in primary care.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Correct use of inhaler devices is fundamental to effective asthma management but represents an important challenge for patients. The correct inhalation manoeuvre differs markedly for different inhaler types. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes for patients prescribed the same inhaler device versus mixed device types for asthma controller and reliever therapy. This retrospective observational study identified patients with asthma (ages 4-80 years) in a large primary care database who were prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the first time. We compared outcomes for patients prescribed the same breath-actuated inhaler (BAI) for ICS controller and salbutamol reliever versus mixed devices (BAI for controller and pressurised metered-dose inhaler [pMDI] for reliever). The 2-year study included 1 baseline year before the ICS prescription (to identify and correct for confounding factors) and 1 outcome year. Endpoints were asthma control (defined as no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection) and severe exacerbations (hospitalisation or oral corticosteroids for asthma). Patients prescribed the same device (n=3,428) were significantly more likely to achieve asthma control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.28) and recorded significantly lower severe exacerbation rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93) than those prescribed mixed devices (n=5,452). These findings suggest that, when possible, the same device should be prescribed for both ICS and reliever therapy when patients are initiating ICS.Allergy, asthma & immunology research 07/2012; 4(4):184-91. · 1.91 Impact Factor -
Article: Reassessing the evidence hierarchy in asthma: evaluating comparative effectiveness.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Classical randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical evidence because of their high internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these approaches is preferable and necessary.Current Allergy and Asthma Reports 09/2011; 11(6):526-38. · 2.50 Impact Factor -
Article: Device type and real-world effectiveness of asthma combination therapy: an observational study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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). 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.Respiratory medicine 05/2011; 105(10):1457-66. · 2.33 Impact Factor -
Article: Leukotriene antagonists as first-line or add-on asthma-controller therapy.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Most randomized trials of treatment for asthma study highly selected patients under idealized conditions. We conducted two parallel, multicenter, pragmatic trials to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist (LTRA) as compared with either an inhaled glucocorticoid for first-line asthma-controller therapy or a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients already receiving inhaled glucocorticoid therapy. Eligible primary care patients 12 to 80 years of age had impaired asthma-related quality of life (Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [MiniAQLQ] score ≤6) or inadequate asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] score ≥1). We randomly assigned patients to 2 years of open-label therapy, under the care of their usual physician, with LTRA (148 patients) or an inhaled glucocorticoid (158 patients) in the first-line controller therapy trial and LTRA (170 patients) or LABA (182 patients) added to an inhaled glucocorticoid in the add-on therapy trial. Mean MiniAQLQ scores increased by 0.8 to 1.0 point over a period of 2 years in both trials. At 2 months, differences in the MiniAQLQ scores between the two treatment groups met our definition of equivalence (95% confidence interval [CI] for an adjusted mean difference, -0.3 to 0.3). At 2 years, mean MiniAQLQ scores approached equivalence, with an adjusted mean difference between treatment groups of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.13) in the first-line controller therapy trial and of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.11) in the add-on therapy trial. Exacerbation rates and ACQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. Study results at 2 months suggest that LTRA was equivalent to an inhaled glucocorticoid as first-line controller therapy and to LABA as add-on therapy for diverse primary care patients. Equivalence was not proved at 2 years. The interpretation of results of pragmatic research may be limited by the crossover between treatment groups and lack of a placebo group. (Funded by the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment U.K. and others; Controlled Clinical Trials number, ISRCTN99132811.).New England Journal of Medicine 05/2011; 364(18):1695-707. · 53.30 Impact Factor -
Article: Reply.
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 01/2011; · 9.17 Impact Factor -
Article: Effectiveness of inhaler types for real-world asthma management: retrospective observational study using the GPRD.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Results of randomized controlled trials may not predict effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in real-world clinical practice, where inhaler technique and device characteristics can influence effectiveness. We compared asthma outcomes for ICS delivered via three different inhaler devices: pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), breath-actuated MDI (BAI), and dry powder inhaler (DPI). This retrospective database study evaluated 1-year outcomes for primary care patients with asthma aged 5-60 years prescribed their first ICS (initiation population) by pMDI (n = 39,746), BAI (n = 9809), or DPI (n = 6792), or their first ICS dose increase (step-up population) by pMDI (n = 6245), BAI (n = 1388), or DPI (n = 1536). Co-primary outcome measures were composite proxy measures of asthma control (no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory infection) and severe exacerbations (unscheduled hospital admission, emergency room attendance, or oral corticosteroids). Outcomes were adjusted for potential confounding factors identified during a baseline year. In the initiation population, adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for asthma control, as compared with pMDIs, were significantly better for BAIs (1.08 [1.02-1.14]) and DPIs (1.13 [1.06-1.21]), while adjusted exacerbation rate ratios (95% CI) were 1.00 (0.93-1.08) and 0.88 (0.81-0.95), respectively. In the step-up population, adjusted odds of asthma control were 1.21 (1.05-1.39) for BAIs and 1.13 (0.99-1.29) for DPIs; adjusted exacerbation rate ratios were 0.83 (0.71-0.98) for BAIs and 0.85 (0.74-0.98) for DPIs, compared with pMDIs. Inhaler device selection may have a bearing on clinical outcomes. Differences in real-world effectiveness among these devices require closer evaluation in well-designed prospective trials.Journal of Asthma and Allergy 01/2011; 4:37-47. -
Article: Prescribing practices and asthma control with hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone and fluticasone: a real-world observational study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Long-term randomized trials comparing asthma outcomes between inhaled corticosteroids in real-world populations are lacking. As such, rigorously conducted observational studies to complement the findings of randomized trials are needed. We sought to compare asthma-related outcomes over 1 year as recorded in a large primary care database for patients aged 5 to 60 years receiving a first prescription (initiation population) or dose increase (step-up population) of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone or fluticasone. We used a retrospective matched cohort study in which patients were matched on baseline demographic and disease severity measures. Coprimary outcomes were asthma control (a composite measure comprising no unplanned visit or hospitalization for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection) and exacerbation rate. More than 80% of patients in each population achieved asthma control; 10% and 16% of patients in the initiation and step-up populations, respectively, received add-on or combination therapy during the year. Fluticasone was prescribed at significantly higher doses than HFA-beclomethasone for both populations (P <or= .001). In the initiation population (n = 1319 in each cohort) the adjusted odds ratio for achieving asthma control with HFA-beclomethasone was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.02-1.65) relative to fluticasone. In the step-up population (cohorts: n = 250) the adjusted odds ratio for achieving asthma control with HFA-beclomethasone was 1.22 (95% CI, 0.66-2.26). Exacerbation rates were similar between cohorts. In a real-world setting patients receiving HFA-beclomethasone had a similar or better chance of achieving asthma control at lower prescribed doses than with fluticasone.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 09/2010; 126(3):511-8.e1-10. · 9.17 Impact Factor -
Article: Observational study comparing intranasal mometasone furoate with oral antihistamines for rhinitis and asthma.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Retrospective database study comparing upper and lower airway-related outcomes for patients with rhinitis and co-morbid asthma receiving mometasone furoate--an intranasal corticosteroid with low systemic bioavailability--or an oral antihistamine. 395 patients prescribed intranasal mometasone were matched on 10 demographic and respiratory-related criteria in a 1:2 ratio to 790 patients prescribed oral antihistamine. Asthma and rhinitis control were assessed over one year using predefined composite proxy measures. Asthma control was achieved by 309/395 (78.2%) versus 580/790 (73.4%; p=0.071) patients in the mometasone and antihistamine cohorts, respectively. Rhinitis control was achieved by 293 (74.2%) versus 539 (68.2%; p=0.035), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for antihistamines, relative to mometasone, were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.52-0.98) for achieving asthma control and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.56-0.97) for achieving rhinitis control. Patients with rhinitis and co-morbid asthma initiating rhinitis therapy achieved significantly better upper as well as lower airway outcomes with intranasal mometasone than with oral antihistamine.Primary care respiratory journal: journal of the General Practice Airways Group 09/2010; 19(3):266-73. -
Article: Cost effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus long-acting beta-2 agonists as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for asthma: a pragmatic trial.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Information is lacking on the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness--in a real-life primary-care setting--of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting beta2 adrenergic receptor agonists (beta2 agonists) as add-on therapy for patients whose asthma symptoms are not controlled on low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). To estimate the cost effectiveness of LTRAs compared with long-acting beta2 agonists as add-on therapy for patients whose asthma symptoms are not controlled on low-dose ICS. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 2-year, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial set in 53 primary-care practices in the UK. Patients aged 12-80 years with asthma insufficiently controlled with ICS (n = 361) were randomly assigned to add-on LTRAs (n = 176) or long-acting beta2 agonists (n = 185). The main outcome measures were the incremental cost per point improvement in the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ), per point improvement in the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and per QALY gained from perspectives of the UK NHS and society. Over 2 years, the societal cost per patient receiving LTRAs was pounds sterling 1157 versus pounds sterling 952 for long-acting beta2 agonists, a (significant, adjusted) increase of pounds sterling 214 (95% CI 2, 411) [year 2005 values]. Patients receiving LTRAs experienced a non-significant incremental gain of 0.009 QALYs (95% CI -0.077, 0.103). The incremental cost per QALY gained from the societal (NHS) perspective was pounds sterling 22,589 (pounds sterling 11,919). Uncertainty around this point estimate suggested that, given a maximum willingness to pay of pounds sterling 30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that LTRAs are a cost-effective alternative to long-acting beta2 agonists as add-on therapy was approximately 52% from both societal and NHS perspectives. On balance, these results marginally favour the repositioning of LTRAs as a cost-effective alternative to long-acting beta2 agonists as add-on therapy to ICS for asthma. However, there is much uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost effectiveness because of similarity of clinical benefit and broad confidence intervals for differences in healthcare costs. UK National Research Register N0547145240; Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN99132811.PharmacoEconomics 07/2010; 28(7):597-608. · 2.66 Impact Factor -
Article: Cost-effectiveness analysis of corticosteroid inhaler devices in primary care asthma management: A real world observational study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate and compare real world cost-effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered by metered dose inhaler (MDI), breath-actuated MDI (BAI), or dry powder inhaler (DPI) in asthma. This retrospective database study analyzed the direct health care costs and proportion of patients (aged 5-60 years) achieving asthma control over 1 year in two population groups: those starting ICS (initiation population) and those receiving a first increase in ICS dose (step-up population). Asthma control was defined as no unplanned asthma visits, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory infection; outcomes were adjusted for confounding variables. Cost-effectiveness of BAI and DPI were compared with MDI. For the initiation population (n = 56,347), average annual health care costs per person (adjusted results), as compared with MDIs, were £9 higher (95% CI: -1.65 to 19.71) for BAIs and £32 higher (95% CI: 19.51 to 43.66) for DPIs. The probability of BAIs being the dominant strategy (more effective and less costly than MDIs) was 5% and of BAIs being more effective and more costly than MDIs was 94%. DPIs were consistently more effective and more costly than MDIs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1711 (95% CI: 760 to 3,576) per additional controlled patient per year. For the step-up population (n = 9169), mean total health care costs per person, (adjusted) as compared with MDIs, were £1 higher (95% CI: -27.28 to 31.55) for BAIs and £73 higher (95% CI: 44.48 to 103.29) for DPIs. The probability of BAIs being dominant was 48% and of BAIs being more effective but more costly than MDIs was 52%; the probability of DPIs being more effective but more costly than MDIs was 96%. The real world effectiveness of ICS inhalers may vary, and inhaler device selection for patients with asthma should take into consideration not only initial device cost but also the subsequent health care resource costs.ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 01/2010; 2:75-85. -
Article: Cost effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus inhaled corticosteroids for initial asthma controller therapy: a pragmatic trial.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Information is lacking on the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness--in a primary-care setting--of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as an alternative to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for initial asthma controller therapy. To compare the cost effectiveness of LTRAs versus ICS for patients initiating asthma controller therapy. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 2-year, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial set in 53 primary-care practices in the UK. Patients aged 12-80 years with asthma and symptoms requiring regular anti-inflammatory therapy (n = 326) were randomly assigned to LTRAs (n = 162) or ICS (n = 164). The main outcome measures were the incremental costs per point improvement in the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, per point improvement in the Asthma Control Questionnaire and per QALY gained from the UK NHS and societal perspectives. Over 2 years, resource use was similar between the two treatment groups, but the cost to society per patient was significantly higher for the LTRA group, at pounds sterling 711 versus pounds sterling 433 for the ICS group (adjusted difference pounds sterling 204; 95% CI 74, 308) [year 2005 values]. Cost differences were driven primarily by differences in prescription drug costs, particularly study drug costs. There was a nonsignificant (imputed, adjusted) difference between treatment groups, favouring ICS, in QALYs gained at 2 years of -0.073 (95% CI -0.143, 0.010). Therapy with LTRAs was, on average, a dominated strategy, and, at a threshold for willingness to pay of pounds sterling 30,000 per QALY gained, the probability of LTRAs being cost effective compared with ICS was approximately 3% from both societal and NHS perspectives. There is a very low probability of LTRAs being cost effective in the UK, at 2005 values, compared with ICS for initial asthma controller therapy. UK National Research Register N0547145240; Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN99132811.PharmacoEconomics 01/2010; 28(7):585-95. · 2.66 Impact Factor -
Article: Achieving asthma control in practice: understanding the reasons for poor control.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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.Respiratory medicine 10/2008; 102(12):1681-93. · 2.33 Impact Factor -
Article: Natural history of asthma: persistence versus progression-does the beginning predict the end?
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Environmental exposures during the early years and airway obstruction that develops during this time, in conjunction with genetic susceptibility, are important factors in the development of persistent asthma in childhood. Established risk factors for childhood asthma include frequent wheezing during the first 3 years, a parental history of asthma, a history of eczema, allergic rhinitis, wheezing apart from colds, and peripheral blood eosinophilia, as well as allergic sensitization to aeroallergens and certain foods. Risk factors for the development of asthma in adulthood remain ill defined. Moreover, reasons for variability in the clinical course of asthma--persistence in some individuals and progression in others--remain an enigma. The distinction between disease persistence and disease progression suggests that these are different entities or phenotypes. There is currently no consensus on whether disease progression requires either airway inflammation or airway remodeling or the combination of the two. For patients with irreversible airway obstruction, inflammation might, in part, be necessary but perhaps not entirely sufficient to induce the irreversible component, some of which could be attributed to alterations in the structure of the bronchial wall. Intervening with intermittent or daily inhaled corticosteroids in high-risk infants and children does not prevent disease progression or impaired lung growth. These findings, however, might not apply to adults, and further study in adults is needed to determine the effect of inhaled corticosteroid therapy on disease progression.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 04/2008; 121(3):607-13. · 9.17 Impact Factor
Top co-authors
Top Journals
Institutions
-
2013
-
Washington Hospital Center
Washington, D. C., DC, USA
-
