Validated questionnaires are used to assess asthma control over the past 1–4 weeks from reporting. However, they do not adequately capture asthma control in patients with fluctuating symptoms. Using ...the Mobile Airways Sentinel Network for airway diseases (MASK-air) app, we developed and validated an electronic daily asthma control score (e-DASTHMA).
We used MASK-air data (freely available to users in 27 countries) to develop and assess different daily control scores for asthma. Data-driven control scores were developed based on asthma symptoms reported by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and self-reported asthma medication use. We included the daily monitoring data from all MASK-air users aged 16–90 years (or older than 13 years to 90 years in countries with a lower age of digital consent) who had used the app in at least 3 different calendar months and had reported at least 1 day of asthma medication use. For each score, we assessed construct validity, test–retest reliability, responsiveness, and accuracy. We used VASs on dyspnoea and work disturbance, EQ-5D-VAS, Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT), CARAT asthma, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Allergy Specific (WPAI:AS) questionnaires as comparators. We performed an internal validation using MASK-air data from Jan 1 to Oct 12, 2022, and an external validation using a cohort of patients with physician-diagnosed asthma (the INSPIRERS cohort) who had had their diagnosis and control (Global Initiative for Asthma GINA classification) of asthma ascertained by a physician.
We studied 135 635 days of MASK-air data from 1662 users from May 21, 2015, to Dec 31, 2021. The scores were strongly correlated with VAS dyspnoea (Spearman correlation coefficient range 0·68–0·82) and moderately correlated with work comparators and quality-of-life-related comparators (for WPAI:AS work, we observed Spearman correlation coefficients of 0·59–0·68). They also displayed high test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients range 0·79–0·95) and moderate-to-high responsiveness (correlation coefficient range 0·69–0·79; effect size measures range 0·57–0·99 in the comparison with VAS dyspnoea). The best-performing score displayed a strong correlation with the effect of asthma on work and school activities in the INSPIRERS cohort (Spearman correlation coefficients 0·70; 95% CI 0·61–0·78) and good accuracy for the identification of patients with uncontrolled or partly controlled asthma according to GINA (area under the receiver operating curve 0·73; 95% CI 0·68–0·78).
e-DASTHMA is a good tool for the daily assessment of asthma control. This tool can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials as well as in clinical practice to assess fluctuations in asthma control and guide treatment optimisation.
None.
Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated ...pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience.
We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared.
Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05).
Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.
PDF