BACKGROUND: Airway obstruction is defined by spirometry as a low forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio. This impaired ratio may originate from a low FEV1 (classic) or a normal FEV1 in combination with a large FVC (dysanaptic). The clinical implications of dysanaptic obstruction during childhood and adolescence in the general population remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between airway obstruction with a low or normal FEV1 in childhood and adolescence, and asthma, wheezing and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR).
METHODS: In the BAMSE (Barn/Child, Allergy, Milieu, Stockholm, Epidemiology; Sweden) and PIAMA (Prevention and Incidence of Asthma and Mite Allergy; the Netherlands) birth cohorts, obstruction (FEV1:FVC ratio less than the lower limit of normal, LLN) at ages 8, 12 (PIAMA only) or 16 years was classified as classic (FEV1 RESULTS: The prevalence of classic obstruction at ages 8, 12 and 16 in the two cohorts was 1.5%, 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively. Dysanaptic obstruction was slightly more prevalent: 3.9%, 2.5% and 4.6%, respectively. Obstruction, regardless of FEV1, was consistently associated with higher odds of asthma (dysanaptic obstruction: OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.74), wheezing, asthma medication use and BHR compared with the normal lung function group. Approximately one-third of the subjects with dysanaptic obstruction in childhood remained dysanaptic during adolescence.
CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents with airway obstruction had, regardless of their FEV1 level, a higher prevalence of asthma and wheezing. Follow-up and treatment at these ages should be guided by the presence of airway obstruction.

UNASSIGNED: The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines emphasize environmental control as an integral part of asthma management; however, limited national-level data exist on how clinicians implement environmental control recommendations.
UNASSIGNED: We analyzed data on clinicians\' self-reported use of recommended environmental control practices in a nationally representative sample (n = 1645) of primary care physicians, asthma specialists, and advanced practice providers from the National Asthma Survey of Physicians, a supplemental questionnaire to the 2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.
UNASSIGNED: We examined clinician and practice characteristics as well as clinicians\' decisions and strategies regarding environmental trigger assessment and environmental control across provider groups. Regression modeling was used to identify clinician and practice characteristics associated with implementation of guideline recommendations.
UNASSIGNED: A higher percentage of specialists assessed asthma triggers at home, school, and/or work than primary care or advanced practice providers (almost always: 53.6% vs 29.4% and 23.7%, respectively, P < .001). Almost all clinicians (>93%) recommended avoidance of secondhand tobacco smoke, whereas recommendations regarding cooking appliances (eg, proper ventilation) were infrequent. Although assessment and recommendation practices differed between clinician groups, modeling results showed that clinicians who reported almost always assessing asthma control were 5- to 6-fold more likely to assess environmental asthma triggers. Use of asthma action plans was also strongly associated with implementation of environmental control recommendations.
UNASSIGNED: Environmental assessment and recommendations to patients varied among asthma care providers. High adherence to other key guideline components, such as assessing asthma control, was associated with environmental assessment and recommendation practices on environmental control.

Inhaled corticosteroids have been widely reported as a preventive measure against the development of severe forms of COVID-19 not only in patients with asthma.
In 654 Czech and Slovak patients with asthma who developed COVID-19, we investigated whether the correct use of inhaler containing corticosteroids was associated with a less severe course of COVID-19 and whether this had an impact on the need for hospitalisation, measurable lung functions and quality of life (QoL).
Of the studied cohort 51.4% had moderate persistent, 29.9% mild persistent and 7.2% severe persistent asthma. We found a significant adverse effect of poor inhaler adherence on COVID-19 severity (p=0.049). We also observed a lower hospitalisation rate in patients adequately taking the inhaler with OR of 0.83. Vital capacity and forced expiratory lung volume deterioration caused by COVID-19 were significantly reversed, by approximately twofold to threefold, in individuals who inhaled correctly.
Higher quality of inhalation technique of corticosteroids measured by adherence to an inhaled medication application technique (A-AppIT) score had a significant positive effect on reversal of the vital capacity and forced expiratory lung volume in 1 s worsening (p=0.027 and p<0.0001, respectively) due to COVID-19. Scoring higher in the A-AppIT was also associated with significantly improved QoL. All measured variables concordantly and without exception showed a positive improvement in response to better adherence. We suggest that corticosteroids provide protection against the worsening of lungs in patients with COVID-19 and that correct and easily assessable adherence to corticosteroids with appropriate inhalation technique play an important role in preventing severe form of COVID-19.

A modified Delphi process was undertaken to provide a US expert-led consensus to guide clinical action on short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) use. This comprised an online survey (Phase 1), forum discussion and statement development (Phase 2), and statement adjudication (Phase 3).
In Phase 1 (n = 100 clinicians), 12% routinely provided patients with ≥4 SABA prescriptions/year, 73% solicited SABA use frequency at every patient visit, and 21% did not consult asthma guidelines/expert reports. Phase 3 experts (n = 8) reached consensus (median Likert score, interquartile range) that use of ≥3 SABA canisters/year is associated with increased risk of exacerbation and asthma-related death (5, 4.75-5); SABA use history should be solicited at every patient visit (5, 4.75-5); usage patterns over time, not absolute thresholds, should guide response to SABA overuse (5, 4.5-5). Future asthma guidelines should include clear recommendations regarding SABA usage, using expert-led thresholds for action.

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

Asthma control is the main goal of management. Unfortunately, most asthma patients with moderate-severe asthma remain uncontrolled despite receiving standard treatment of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with long-acting β2 agonists (LABA). The addition of long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) has been shown to improve different aspects of asthma control, including symptoms, lung functions, and probably exacerbations. Such an option could be considered for low-T2 asthma phenotype. Umeclidinium and glycopyrronium bromide are other LAMA agents that have been recently made available in combination with ICS and LABA in single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) devices. Here, we discuss the position of SITT as a new novel therapeutic option in asthma management and its clinical benefits, potential cost saving, and improved compliance.

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.

The use of real-world evidence (RWE) studies, including pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs; randomised RWE studies), to aid the development of treatment guidelines, is gradually becoming a mainstay within clinical practice. RWE is an integral part of patient-driven decision-making and offers important value to add complimentary evidence to traditional RCTs; these provide a more well-rounded view of the benefits to patient-reported outcomes and improve the external validity of a given treatment versus findings from traditional RCTs alone. Discussions in recent scientific workshops explored the importance of pragmatic RCTs in optimising guideline development and patient care in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. The Salford Lung Study in patients with COPD (NCT01551758) and asthma (NCT01706198) were the world\'s first prelicence pragmatic RCTs that compared novel investigational treatments with existing COPD and asthma treatments and, more recently (2021), RWE studies have been used by the American Thoracic Society and the US Food and Drug Administration to support the approval of an immunosuppressant drug in patients receiving lung transplants. This highlights the importance of RWE data in supporting clinical guideline development and emphasises the advantages for the use of pragmatic RCTs in guiding clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled therapies are key components of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatments. Although the use of pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) accounts for <0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, their contribution to global warming has been debated and efforts are underway to reduce the carbon footprint of pMDIs. Our aim was to establish the extent to which different scenarios led to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions associated with inhaler use, and their clinical implications.
METHODS: We conducted a series of scenario analyses using asthma and COPD inhaler usage data from 2019 to model carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions reductions over a 10-year period (2020-2030) in the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Spain: switching propellant-driven pMDIs for propellant-free dry-powder inhalers (DPIs)/soft mist inhalers (SMIs); transitioning to low global warming potential (GWP) propellant (hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-152a) pMDIs; reducing short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) use; and inhaler recycling.
RESULTS: Transition to low-GWP pMDIs and forced switching to DPI/SMIs (excluding SABA inhalers) would reduce annual CO2e emissions by 68%-84% and 64%-71%, respectively, but with different clinical implications. Emission reductions would be greatest (82%-89%) with transition of both maintenance and SABA inhalers to low-GWP propellant. Only minimising SABA inhaler use would reduce CO2e emissions by 17%-48%. Although significant greenhouse gas emission reductions would be achieved with high rates of end-of-life recycling (81%-87% of the inhalers), transition to a low-GWP propellant would still result in greater reductions.
CONCLUSIONS: While the absolute contribution of pMDIs to global warming is very small, substantial reductions in the carbon footprint of pMDIs can be achieved with transition to low-GWP propellant (HFA-152a) inhalers. This approach outperforms the substitution of pMDIs with DPI/SMIs while preserving patient access and choice, which are essential for optimising treatment and outcomes. These findings require confirmation in independent studies.

BACKGROUND: International asthma guidelines recommend against epinephrine (adrenaline) administration in acute asthma unless associated with anaphylaxis or angio-oedema. However, administration of intramuscular epinephrine in addition to nebulised selective β2-agonist is recommended for acute severe or life-threatening asthma in many prehospital guidelines. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of epinephrine in comparison to selective β2-agonist in acute asthma.
METHODS: We included peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children or adults in any healthcare setting and compared epinephrine by any route to selective β2-agonist by any route for an acute asthma exacerbation. The primary outcome was treatment failure, including hospitalisation, need for intubation or death.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 1140 studies were included. Overall quality of evidence was low. Seventeen studies contributed data on 1299 participants to the meta-analysis. There was significant statistical heterogeneity, I2=56%. The pooled Peto\'s OR for treatment failure with epinephrine versus selective β2-agonist was 0.99 (0.75 to 1.32), p=0.95. There was strong evidence that recruitment age group was associated with different estimates of the odds of treatment failure; with studies recruiting adults-only having lower odds of treatment failure with epinephrine. It was not possible to determine whether epinephrine in addition to selective β2-agonist improved outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The low-quality evidence available suggests that epinephrine and selective β2-agonists have similar efficacy in acute asthma. There is a need for high-quality double-blind RCTs to determine whether addition of intramuscular epinephrine to inhaled or nebulised selective β2-agonist improves outcome.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42017079472.