Asthma

MADRID – Consistent with previous evidence of higher relative rates of drug delivery, mesh nebulizers offer several advantages over jet nebulizers for treatment of acute asthma in children presenting to an emergency department, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

For the primary outcome of hospital admission, the advantage of the mesh over the jet nebulizer only reached significance when used with a mask, rather than a valve, but trial results overall support the conclusion that the mesh device delivers drug more efficiently, according to Gerald Moody, RRT-NPS, clinical research coordinator at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas.

In this multicenter, single-blinded trial, 217 children presenting to an ED with acute asthma of moderate or greater severity were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment delivered with a mesh device or a jet device. For drug delivery, aerosol masks or mouthpiece valves were permitted and selected at the discretion of the clinician administrating treatment. Masks were used in 80% of cases.

Patients remained in the study until either symptom control was achieved or a decision was reached to advise hospital admission. Patients with complex comorbidities or who had received oral corticosteroids within the previous 24 hours were excluded.

For the primary outcome of hospital discharge, the 31% reduction (P = .22) in hospitalization in favor of the mesh nebulizer failed to reach statistical significance. Although the study is likely to have been underpowered, Mr. Moody also pointed out an uneven distribution in severity of disease at baseline. In addition to a significantly higher median asthma score (9.0 vs. 8.0; P = .042) in the mesh nebulizer group, there was also a significantly higher percentage with severe disease (57% vs. 42%; P = .025).

“There were no significant differences in any of the other variables we evaluated, such as age, gender, race, or body mass index,” Mr. Moody reported.

Despite the higher disease burden in the mesh nebulizer group, there was a 48% reduction (P = .03) in hospital admissions among those randomized to the mesh nebulizer when both groups received treatment through a mask.

In addition, those treated with the mask required on average only two treatments before achieving symptom control whether they met criteria for moderate or severe asthma at baseline. The median numbers of treatments in the jet nebulizer group for moderate and severe asthma were 3 and 3.5, respectively.

In previous experimental studies, which ultimately provided the rationale for this trial, the estimated amount of drug reaching the airways with a mesh nebulizer was approximately twice as great as that estimated in the model when delivery was performed with a jet device, according to Mr. Moody.

This study appeared to corroborate that advantage. Both the median doses of albuterol (10 mg vs. 15 mg) and ipratropium (1,000 mcg vs. 1,500 mcg) were significantly lower (P less than .001 for both) among the patients randomized to the mesh nebulizer.

Although the jet nebulizers are widely employed “for their ease of use and low cost,” Mr. Moody characterized mesh nebulizers as an advance in technology. In this study, which Mr. Moody said is the first to evaluate whether the experimental evidence of greater drug delivery efficiency translates into a clinical advantage, the primary endpoint was missed, but Mr. Moody indicated that the overall findings support the potential for a difference.

The ERS-invited discussant on this study, Celeste Michala Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University, expressed a concern that might deserve attention in a larger trial. Based on the premise that more efficient delivery increases drug exposure, she questioned whether it might not also increase risks.

There were no significant treatment-related adverse events reported in either arm of this study, Mr. Moody responded, but he conceded that this is an appropriate focus of attention for future studies.

Mr. Moody reported a financial relationship with Aerogen, which produces the mesh device tested in this trial.

MADRID – Consistent with previous evidence of higher relative rates of drug delivery, mesh nebulizers offer several advantages over jet nebulizers for treatment of acute asthma in children presenting to an emergency department, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

For the primary outcome of hospital admission, the advantage of the mesh over the jet nebulizer only reached significance when used with a mask, rather than a valve, but trial results overall support the conclusion that the mesh device delivers drug more efficiently, according to Gerald Moody, RRT-NPS, clinical research coordinator at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas.

In this multicenter, single-blinded trial, 217 children presenting to an ED with acute asthma of moderate or greater severity were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment delivered with a mesh device or a jet device. For drug delivery, aerosol masks or mouthpiece valves were permitted and selected at the discretion of the clinician administrating treatment. Masks were used in 80% of cases.

Patients remained in the study until either symptom control was achieved or a decision was reached to advise hospital admission. Patients with complex comorbidities or who had received oral corticosteroids within the previous 24 hours were excluded.

For the primary outcome of hospital discharge, the 31% reduction (P = .22) in hospitalization in favor of the mesh nebulizer failed to reach statistical significance. Although the study is likely to have been underpowered, Mr. Moody also pointed out an uneven distribution in severity of disease at baseline. In addition to a significantly higher median asthma score (9.0 vs. 8.0; P = .042) in the mesh nebulizer group, there was also a significantly higher percentage with severe disease (57% vs. 42%; P = .025).

“There were no significant differences in any of the other variables we evaluated, such as age, gender, race, or body mass index,” Mr. Moody reported.

Despite the higher disease burden in the mesh nebulizer group, there was a 48% reduction (P = .03) in hospital admissions among those randomized to the mesh nebulizer when both groups received treatment through a mask.

In addition, those treated with the mask required on average only two treatments before achieving symptom control whether they met criteria for moderate or severe asthma at baseline. The median numbers of treatments in the jet nebulizer group for moderate and severe asthma were 3 and 3.5, respectively.

In previous experimental studies, which ultimately provided the rationale for this trial, the estimated amount of drug reaching the airways with a mesh nebulizer was approximately twice as great as that estimated in the model when delivery was performed with a jet device, according to Mr. Moody.

This study appeared to corroborate that advantage. Both the median doses of albuterol (10 mg vs. 15 mg) and ipratropium (1,000 mcg vs. 1,500 mcg) were significantly lower (P less than .001 for both) among the patients randomized to the mesh nebulizer.

Although the jet nebulizers are widely employed “for their ease of use and low cost,” Mr. Moody characterized mesh nebulizers as an advance in technology. In this study, which Mr. Moody said is the first to evaluate whether the experimental evidence of greater drug delivery efficiency translates into a clinical advantage, the primary endpoint was missed, but Mr. Moody indicated that the overall findings support the potential for a difference.

The ERS-invited discussant on this study, Celeste Michala Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University, expressed a concern that might deserve attention in a larger trial. Based on the premise that more efficient delivery increases drug exposure, she questioned whether it might not also increase risks.

There were no significant treatment-related adverse events reported in either arm of this study, Mr. Moody responded, but he conceded that this is an appropriate focus of attention for future studies.

Mr. Moody reported a financial relationship with Aerogen, which produces the mesh device tested in this trial.

MADRID – Consistent with previous evidence of higher relative rates of drug delivery, mesh nebulizers offer several advantages over jet nebulizers for treatment of acute asthma in children presenting to an emergency department, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

For the primary outcome of hospital admission, the advantage of the mesh over the jet nebulizer only reached significance when used with a mask, rather than a valve, but trial results overall support the conclusion that the mesh device delivers drug more efficiently, according to Gerald Moody, RRT-NPS, clinical research coordinator at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas.

In this multicenter, single-blinded trial, 217 children presenting to an ED with acute asthma of moderate or greater severity were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment delivered with a mesh device or a jet device. For drug delivery, aerosol masks or mouthpiece valves were permitted and selected at the discretion of the clinician administrating treatment. Masks were used in 80% of cases.

Patients remained in the study until either symptom control was achieved or a decision was reached to advise hospital admission. Patients with complex comorbidities or who had received oral corticosteroids within the previous 24 hours were excluded.

For the primary outcome of hospital discharge, the 31% reduction (P = .22) in hospitalization in favor of the mesh nebulizer failed to reach statistical significance. Although the study is likely to have been underpowered, Mr. Moody also pointed out an uneven distribution in severity of disease at baseline. In addition to a significantly higher median asthma score (9.0 vs. 8.0; P = .042) in the mesh nebulizer group, there was also a significantly higher percentage with severe disease (57% vs. 42%; P = .025).

“There were no significant differences in any of the other variables we evaluated, such as age, gender, race, or body mass index,” Mr. Moody reported.

Despite the higher disease burden in the mesh nebulizer group, there was a 48% reduction (P = .03) in hospital admissions among those randomized to the mesh nebulizer when both groups received treatment through a mask.

In addition, those treated with the mask required on average only two treatments before achieving symptom control whether they met criteria for moderate or severe asthma at baseline. The median numbers of treatments in the jet nebulizer group for moderate and severe asthma were 3 and 3.5, respectively.

In previous experimental studies, which ultimately provided the rationale for this trial, the estimated amount of drug reaching the airways with a mesh nebulizer was approximately twice as great as that estimated in the model when delivery was performed with a jet device, according to Mr. Moody.

This study appeared to corroborate that advantage. Both the median doses of albuterol (10 mg vs. 15 mg) and ipratropium (1,000 mcg vs. 1,500 mcg) were significantly lower (P less than .001 for both) among the patients randomized to the mesh nebulizer.

Although the jet nebulizers are widely employed “for their ease of use and low cost,” Mr. Moody characterized mesh nebulizers as an advance in technology. In this study, which Mr. Moody said is the first to evaluate whether the experimental evidence of greater drug delivery efficiency translates into a clinical advantage, the primary endpoint was missed, but Mr. Moody indicated that the overall findings support the potential for a difference.

The ERS-invited discussant on this study, Celeste Michala Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University, expressed a concern that might deserve attention in a larger trial. Based on the premise that more efficient delivery increases drug exposure, she questioned whether it might not also increase risks.

There were no significant treatment-related adverse events reported in either arm of this study, Mr. Moody responded, but he conceded that this is an appropriate focus of attention for future studies.

Mr. Moody reported a financial relationship with Aerogen, which produces the mesh device tested in this trial.

MADRID –  In the context of three previous trials, a new phase 3 trial demonstrates that the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is at least comparable to  maintenance ICS for preventing severe exacerbations in the routine care of patients with mild to moderate asthma, according to a presentation at the 2019 ERS International Congress.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

This “real-world” study, called PRACTICAL, produced results similar to those of the previous three studies. It showed similar or modestly improved efficacy for the as-needed approach in patients enrolled with mild to moderate asthma, according to Joanna Hardy, MD, a research fellow at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington.

Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines identify either of the two strategies tested in this trial as acceptable for patients eligible for step 2 asthma control. This study, as in the three trials published previously, provided reassurance that an as-needed approach is adequate for patients insufficiently adherent to daily maintenance therapy.

In PRACTICAL, the results of which were published just prior to the 2019 ERS Congress (Lancet 2019;394:919-28), 890 patients were randomized to use of a single inhaler containing 200 mcg budesonide plus 6 mcg formoterol as needed for symptoms or to a maintenance regimen with the same dose of budesonide taken twice daily. The protocol allowed 250 mcg terbutaline as needed for symptom control in the maintenance arm. The patients were followed for 52 weeks.

For the primary endpoint of the per-patient number of severe exacerbations, defined as need for 3 consecutive days of oral corticosteroids or an emergency department visit to receive oral corticosteroids, the as-needed approach reduced the relative risk by 31% (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .049). The per-patient rates of exacerbations for the as-needed and maintenance arms were 0.0119 and 0.172, respectively.

The time to first exacerbation, a secondary endpoint, approached significance in favor of as-needed treatment (HR 0.6; P = .05). There was no difference in asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire or in lung function as measured with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ at any visit or at the end of the study.

Two SYGMA trials (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2), both published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, addressed the same question. Most like PRACTICAL, SYGMA 2 randomized 4,215 patients with mild asthma and found as-needed budesonide/formoterol noninferior to budesonide maintenance for preventing severe exacerbations.

In SYGMA 1, which included an as-needed terbutaline arm, 3,849 patients were randomized. Although as-needed budesonide-formoterol was inferior to budesonide maintenance in that study (but superior to as-needed to terbutaline), the adherence to budesonide maintenance was 78.9%, which Dr. Hardy said does not reflect real-world patient behavior.

“The problem is that we have a lot of data to show that adherence to maintenance asthma therapy in mild asthma is poor,” Dr. Hardy said. In PRACTICAL, all patients were provided with an asthma action plan but no strategies were offered to improve compliance over those employed in usual practice.

In the open-label Novel START trial, published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the question posed was different. In that study, which randomized 675 patients, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was superior to as-needed albuterol for prevention of asthma exacerbations at 52 weeks, the time point employed in all four studies. The results, while confirming the importance of the ICS component, have been generally interpreted as supporting the as-needed therapy in mild asthma.

At the ERS 2019 Congress, one of the moderators of the session in which Dr. Hardy spoke, Guy Brusselle, MD, Ghent (Belgium) University, agreed that the available evidence supports as-needed therapy as a viable strategy in mild asthma, but expressed concern about applying this conclusion to patients who have asthma requiring therapy beyond GINA step 2.

“These data might put patients who need GINA step 3 or 4 therapy at risk of not receiving the maintenance therapy they need for disease control,” Dr. Brusselle said.

In light of the challenge of separating those with moderate from mild asthma, Dr. Brusselle suggested another arm to add to real-world clinical trials attempting to identify the most effective approach.

“The optimal arm might be maintenance budesonide with as-needed ICS/LABA,” Dr. Brusselle said. He explained that even if compliance is low, at least some patients will be receiving a maintenance therapy, and this approach might ultimately offer more benefit than one in which patients do not even consider maintenance.

Dr. Hardy reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID –  In the context of three previous trials, a new phase 3 trial demonstrates that the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is at least comparable to  maintenance ICS for preventing severe exacerbations in the routine care of patients with mild to moderate asthma, according to a presentation at the 2019 ERS International Congress.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

This “real-world” study, called PRACTICAL, produced results similar to those of the previous three studies. It showed similar or modestly improved efficacy for the as-needed approach in patients enrolled with mild to moderate asthma, according to Joanna Hardy, MD, a research fellow at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington.

Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines identify either of the two strategies tested in this trial as acceptable for patients eligible for step 2 asthma control. This study, as in the three trials published previously, provided reassurance that an as-needed approach is adequate for patients insufficiently adherent to daily maintenance therapy.

In PRACTICAL, the results of which were published just prior to the 2019 ERS Congress (Lancet 2019;394:919-28), 890 patients were randomized to use of a single inhaler containing 200 mcg budesonide plus 6 mcg formoterol as needed for symptoms or to a maintenance regimen with the same dose of budesonide taken twice daily. The protocol allowed 250 mcg terbutaline as needed for symptom control in the maintenance arm. The patients were followed for 52 weeks.

For the primary endpoint of the per-patient number of severe exacerbations, defined as need for 3 consecutive days of oral corticosteroids or an emergency department visit to receive oral corticosteroids, the as-needed approach reduced the relative risk by 31% (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .049). The per-patient rates of exacerbations for the as-needed and maintenance arms were 0.0119 and 0.172, respectively.

The time to first exacerbation, a secondary endpoint, approached significance in favor of as-needed treatment (HR 0.6; P = .05). There was no difference in asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire or in lung function as measured with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ at any visit or at the end of the study.

Two SYGMA trials (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2), both published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, addressed the same question. Most like PRACTICAL, SYGMA 2 randomized 4,215 patients with mild asthma and found as-needed budesonide/formoterol noninferior to budesonide maintenance for preventing severe exacerbations.

In SYGMA 1, which included an as-needed terbutaline arm, 3,849 patients were randomized. Although as-needed budesonide-formoterol was inferior to budesonide maintenance in that study (but superior to as-needed to terbutaline), the adherence to budesonide maintenance was 78.9%, which Dr. Hardy said does not reflect real-world patient behavior.

“The problem is that we have a lot of data to show that adherence to maintenance asthma therapy in mild asthma is poor,” Dr. Hardy said. In PRACTICAL, all patients were provided with an asthma action plan but no strategies were offered to improve compliance over those employed in usual practice.

In the open-label Novel START trial, published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the question posed was different. In that study, which randomized 675 patients, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was superior to as-needed albuterol for prevention of asthma exacerbations at 52 weeks, the time point employed in all four studies. The results, while confirming the importance of the ICS component, have been generally interpreted as supporting the as-needed therapy in mild asthma.

At the ERS 2019 Congress, one of the moderators of the session in which Dr. Hardy spoke, Guy Brusselle, MD, Ghent (Belgium) University, agreed that the available evidence supports as-needed therapy as a viable strategy in mild asthma, but expressed concern about applying this conclusion to patients who have asthma requiring therapy beyond GINA step 2.

“These data might put patients who need GINA step 3 or 4 therapy at risk of not receiving the maintenance therapy they need for disease control,” Dr. Brusselle said.

In light of the challenge of separating those with moderate from mild asthma, Dr. Brusselle suggested another arm to add to real-world clinical trials attempting to identify the most effective approach.

“The optimal arm might be maintenance budesonide with as-needed ICS/LABA,” Dr. Brusselle said. He explained that even if compliance is low, at least some patients will be receiving a maintenance therapy, and this approach might ultimately offer more benefit than one in which patients do not even consider maintenance.

Dr. Hardy reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID –  In the context of three previous trials, a new phase 3 trial demonstrates that the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is at least comparable to  maintenance ICS for preventing severe exacerbations in the routine care of patients with mild to moderate asthma, according to a presentation at the 2019 ERS International Congress.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

This “real-world” study, called PRACTICAL, produced results similar to those of the previous three studies. It showed similar or modestly improved efficacy for the as-needed approach in patients enrolled with mild to moderate asthma, according to Joanna Hardy, MD, a research fellow at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington.

Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines identify either of the two strategies tested in this trial as acceptable for patients eligible for step 2 asthma control. This study, as in the three trials published previously, provided reassurance that an as-needed approach is adequate for patients insufficiently adherent to daily maintenance therapy.

In PRACTICAL, the results of which were published just prior to the 2019 ERS Congress (Lancet 2019;394:919-28), 890 patients were randomized to use of a single inhaler containing 200 mcg budesonide plus 6 mcg formoterol as needed for symptoms or to a maintenance regimen with the same dose of budesonide taken twice daily. The protocol allowed 250 mcg terbutaline as needed for symptom control in the maintenance arm. The patients were followed for 52 weeks.

For the primary endpoint of the per-patient number of severe exacerbations, defined as need for 3 consecutive days of oral corticosteroids or an emergency department visit to receive oral corticosteroids, the as-needed approach reduced the relative risk by 31% (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .049). The per-patient rates of exacerbations for the as-needed and maintenance arms were 0.0119 and 0.172, respectively.

The time to first exacerbation, a secondary endpoint, approached significance in favor of as-needed treatment (HR 0.6; P = .05). There was no difference in asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire or in lung function as measured with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ at any visit or at the end of the study.

Two SYGMA trials (SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2), both published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, addressed the same question. Most like PRACTICAL, SYGMA 2 randomized 4,215 patients with mild asthma and found as-needed budesonide/formoterol noninferior to budesonide maintenance for preventing severe exacerbations.

In SYGMA 1, which included an as-needed terbutaline arm, 3,849 patients were randomized. Although as-needed budesonide-formoterol was inferior to budesonide maintenance in that study (but superior to as-needed to terbutaline), the adherence to budesonide maintenance was 78.9%, which Dr. Hardy said does not reflect real-world patient behavior.

“The problem is that we have a lot of data to show that adherence to maintenance asthma therapy in mild asthma is poor,” Dr. Hardy said. In PRACTICAL, all patients were provided with an asthma action plan but no strategies were offered to improve compliance over those employed in usual practice.

In the open-label Novel START trial, published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the question posed was different. In that study, which randomized 675 patients, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was superior to as-needed albuterol for prevention of asthma exacerbations at 52 weeks, the time point employed in all four studies. The results, while confirming the importance of the ICS component, have been generally interpreted as supporting the as-needed therapy in mild asthma.

At the ERS 2019 Congress, one of the moderators of the session in which Dr. Hardy spoke, Guy Brusselle, MD, Ghent (Belgium) University, agreed that the available evidence supports as-needed therapy as a viable strategy in mild asthma, but expressed concern about applying this conclusion to patients who have asthma requiring therapy beyond GINA step 2.

“These data might put patients who need GINA step 3 or 4 therapy at risk of not receiving the maintenance therapy they need for disease control,” Dr. Brusselle said.

In light of the challenge of separating those with moderate from mild asthma, Dr. Brusselle suggested another arm to add to real-world clinical trials attempting to identify the most effective approach.

“The optimal arm might be maintenance budesonide with as-needed ICS/LABA,” Dr. Brusselle said. He explained that even if compliance is low, at least some patients will be receiving a maintenance therapy, and this approach might ultimately offer more benefit than one in which patients do not even consider maintenance.

Dr. Hardy reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a prefilled, single-use autoinjector of benralizumab (Fasenra) for self-administration in adults with eosinophilic asthma, according to a press release from AstraZeneca. Benralizumab is already approved as add-on maintenance for this form of asthma, but not for other eosinophilic conditions or for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The autoinjector “pen” was tested for usability and pharmacokinetic exposure in two studies, the phase 3 GRECO trial and the phase 1 AMES trial, respectively. The multicenter, open-label GRECO trial was designed to assess patient- or caregiver-reported functionality, and it found that 97% of at-home administrations were successful at week 12 and week 16. The multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group AMES trial compared pharmacokinetic exposure with the subcutaneous administration using either prefilled syringe or prefilled autoinjector; it found that the eosinophils were rapidly depleted in patients with use of either device.

The safety profiles in both trials were comparable to those seen in previous trials. Hypersensitivity reactions have been sometimes observed in the hours following administration of benralizumab; discontinuation is advised in case of any hypersensitivity reaction. The therapy should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms, such as exacerbations, or bronchospasm, and any reduction in corticosteroid therapy should be gradual and performed under careful supervision of a health care professional. Although benralizumab’s effects on helminth infections are currently unknown, care should be taken with preexisting or incident infections.

Full prescribing information can be found on the AstraZeneca website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a prefilled, single-use autoinjector of benralizumab (Fasenra) for self-administration in adults with eosinophilic asthma, according to a press release from AstraZeneca. Benralizumab is already approved as add-on maintenance for this form of asthma, but not for other eosinophilic conditions or for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The autoinjector “pen” was tested for usability and pharmacokinetic exposure in two studies, the phase 3 GRECO trial and the phase 1 AMES trial, respectively. The multicenter, open-label GRECO trial was designed to assess patient- or caregiver-reported functionality, and it found that 97% of at-home administrations were successful at week 12 and week 16. The multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group AMES trial compared pharmacokinetic exposure with the subcutaneous administration using either prefilled syringe or prefilled autoinjector; it found that the eosinophils were rapidly depleted in patients with use of either device.

The safety profiles in both trials were comparable to those seen in previous trials. Hypersensitivity reactions have been sometimes observed in the hours following administration of benralizumab; discontinuation is advised in case of any hypersensitivity reaction. The therapy should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms, such as exacerbations, or bronchospasm, and any reduction in corticosteroid therapy should be gradual and performed under careful supervision of a health care professional. Although benralizumab’s effects on helminth infections are currently unknown, care should be taken with preexisting or incident infections.

Full prescribing information can be found on the AstraZeneca website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a prefilled, single-use autoinjector of benralizumab (Fasenra) for self-administration in adults with eosinophilic asthma, according to a press release from AstraZeneca. Benralizumab is already approved as add-on maintenance for this form of asthma, but not for other eosinophilic conditions or for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The autoinjector “pen” was tested for usability and pharmacokinetic exposure in two studies, the phase 3 GRECO trial and the phase 1 AMES trial, respectively. The multicenter, open-label GRECO trial was designed to assess patient- or caregiver-reported functionality, and it found that 97% of at-home administrations were successful at week 12 and week 16. The multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group AMES trial compared pharmacokinetic exposure with the subcutaneous administration using either prefilled syringe or prefilled autoinjector; it found that the eosinophils were rapidly depleted in patients with use of either device.

The safety profiles in both trials were comparable to those seen in previous trials. Hypersensitivity reactions have been sometimes observed in the hours following administration of benralizumab; discontinuation is advised in case of any hypersensitivity reaction. The therapy should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms, such as exacerbations, or bronchospasm, and any reduction in corticosteroid therapy should be gradual and performed under careful supervision of a health care professional. Although benralizumab’s effects on helminth infections are currently unknown, care should be taken with preexisting or incident infections.

Full prescribing information can be found on the AstraZeneca website.

[email protected]

MADRID – The serious adverse events faced by asthma patients taking maintenance or rescue oral corticosteroids (OCS) might be avoidable if data from a Dutch study presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society are representative of practice elsewhere.

“The main message from our study is that OCS overuse is common and unnecessary in the majority of asthma patients,” reported Katrien A.B. Eger, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centre.

In this study, 5,002 patients on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), defined as at least 500 mcg/day, were identified in a pharmacy database in the Netherlands. These patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine how many had severe asthma and had received rescue or maintenance OCS in the past year.

Drawing from the pharmacy database, it could be determined that 29% of the 2,312 patients who responded to the questionnaire were taking harmfully high doses of OCS as well as high doses of ICS. For this study, harmful exposure was defined as a cumulative intake of 420 mg of prednisone-equivalent OCS over a 1-year period. The median cumulative 1-year exposure, according to Dr. Eger, was 750 mg of prednisone equivalent.

In this population, the investigators then calculated ICS medication adherence based on prescription refills. In addition, a subset of this population was evaluated for inhaler technique.

On the basis of these calculations, 47.4% of patients with harmful OCS exposure were found not to be adherent to their prescribed ICS. Of those who were adherent, 53.9% were found not be taking their inhaled steroids appropriately,

When these numbers are put together, the data suggest “78.1% of high OCS users are either nonadherent or using poor inhalation techniques, which means there is a big potential for treatment optimization,” Dr. Eger said.

Yet even among the 21.9% who were adherent and using good inhaler technique, identifying a group who presumably require OCS for exacerbations, the study found that only 46.1% had been prescribed a biologic, which Dr. Eger considers an important steroid-sparing option. She conceded that many of those not on a biologic might not be candidates, but she believes this is another missed opportunity for reducing OCS exposure.

“In the Netherlands, we have very good access to health care, and biologics are available to anyone who needs them,” said Dr. Eger, explaining that access to these drugs is not a barrier.

The evidence overall is that not enough is being done to ensure that asthma patients are being protected from the risks of OCS, according to Dr. Eger. Citing evidence that adverse events associated with OCS begin with a cumulative lifetime prednisone-equivalent exposure of only 500 mg, she believes that clinicians should be more aggressive in intervening.

“We know that there are both acute and chronic complications associated with OCS that involve a range of organ systems,” Dr. Eger said. She listed osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and adrenal insufficiency as examples. Rescue OCS, even if used sparingly, can drive risk of OCS complications attributable to the importance of cumulative exposure.

In the session where these data were presented, the moderator, Guy Brusselle, MD, professor of asthma and immunology, Ghent (Belgium) University, labeled them “important.” However, he quibbled with Dr. Eger’s assertion that biologics represent a major opportunity to reduce OCS exposure.

“By suggesting that biologics are not being used often enough, there is an assumption that all of these patients have type 2 inflammatory asthma,” Dr. Brusselle said. “I think it makes more sense to emphasize steroid-sparing strategies, not just biologics.”

Dr. Eger did not disagree, but she emphasized that steroid-sparing alternatives are just one strategy to reduce OCS exposure, and ensuring that patients are adherent to prescribed ICS therapies and are using them correctly might have an even greater impact.

Dr. Eger reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – The serious adverse events faced by asthma patients taking maintenance or rescue oral corticosteroids (OCS) might be avoidable if data from a Dutch study presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society are representative of practice elsewhere.

“The main message from our study is that OCS overuse is common and unnecessary in the majority of asthma patients,” reported Katrien A.B. Eger, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centre.

In this study, 5,002 patients on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), defined as at least 500 mcg/day, were identified in a pharmacy database in the Netherlands. These patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine how many had severe asthma and had received rescue or maintenance OCS in the past year.

Drawing from the pharmacy database, it could be determined that 29% of the 2,312 patients who responded to the questionnaire were taking harmfully high doses of OCS as well as high doses of ICS. For this study, harmful exposure was defined as a cumulative intake of 420 mg of prednisone-equivalent OCS over a 1-year period. The median cumulative 1-year exposure, according to Dr. Eger, was 750 mg of prednisone equivalent.

In this population, the investigators then calculated ICS medication adherence based on prescription refills. In addition, a subset of this population was evaluated for inhaler technique.

On the basis of these calculations, 47.4% of patients with harmful OCS exposure were found not to be adherent to their prescribed ICS. Of those who were adherent, 53.9% were found not be taking their inhaled steroids appropriately,

When these numbers are put together, the data suggest “78.1% of high OCS users are either nonadherent or using poor inhalation techniques, which means there is a big potential for treatment optimization,” Dr. Eger said.

Yet even among the 21.9% who were adherent and using good inhaler technique, identifying a group who presumably require OCS for exacerbations, the study found that only 46.1% had been prescribed a biologic, which Dr. Eger considers an important steroid-sparing option. She conceded that many of those not on a biologic might not be candidates, but she believes this is another missed opportunity for reducing OCS exposure.

“In the Netherlands, we have very good access to health care, and biologics are available to anyone who needs them,” said Dr. Eger, explaining that access to these drugs is not a barrier.

The evidence overall is that not enough is being done to ensure that asthma patients are being protected from the risks of OCS, according to Dr. Eger. Citing evidence that adverse events associated with OCS begin with a cumulative lifetime prednisone-equivalent exposure of only 500 mg, she believes that clinicians should be more aggressive in intervening.

“We know that there are both acute and chronic complications associated with OCS that involve a range of organ systems,” Dr. Eger said. She listed osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and adrenal insufficiency as examples. Rescue OCS, even if used sparingly, can drive risk of OCS complications attributable to the importance of cumulative exposure.

In the session where these data were presented, the moderator, Guy Brusselle, MD, professor of asthma and immunology, Ghent (Belgium) University, labeled them “important.” However, he quibbled with Dr. Eger’s assertion that biologics represent a major opportunity to reduce OCS exposure.

“By suggesting that biologics are not being used often enough, there is an assumption that all of these patients have type 2 inflammatory asthma,” Dr. Brusselle said. “I think it makes more sense to emphasize steroid-sparing strategies, not just biologics.”

Dr. Eger did not disagree, but she emphasized that steroid-sparing alternatives are just one strategy to reduce OCS exposure, and ensuring that patients are adherent to prescribed ICS therapies and are using them correctly might have an even greater impact.

Dr. Eger reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – The serious adverse events faced by asthma patients taking maintenance or rescue oral corticosteroids (OCS) might be avoidable if data from a Dutch study presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society are representative of practice elsewhere.

“The main message from our study is that OCS overuse is common and unnecessary in the majority of asthma patients,” reported Katrien A.B. Eger, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centre.

In this study, 5,002 patients on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), defined as at least 500 mcg/day, were identified in a pharmacy database in the Netherlands. These patients were asked to complete a questionnaire to determine how many had severe asthma and had received rescue or maintenance OCS in the past year.

Drawing from the pharmacy database, it could be determined that 29% of the 2,312 patients who responded to the questionnaire were taking harmfully high doses of OCS as well as high doses of ICS. For this study, harmful exposure was defined as a cumulative intake of 420 mg of prednisone-equivalent OCS over a 1-year period. The median cumulative 1-year exposure, according to Dr. Eger, was 750 mg of prednisone equivalent.

In this population, the investigators then calculated ICS medication adherence based on prescription refills. In addition, a subset of this population was evaluated for inhaler technique.

On the basis of these calculations, 47.4% of patients with harmful OCS exposure were found not to be adherent to their prescribed ICS. Of those who were adherent, 53.9% were found not be taking their inhaled steroids appropriately,

When these numbers are put together, the data suggest “78.1% of high OCS users are either nonadherent or using poor inhalation techniques, which means there is a big potential for treatment optimization,” Dr. Eger said.

Yet even among the 21.9% who were adherent and using good inhaler technique, identifying a group who presumably require OCS for exacerbations, the study found that only 46.1% had been prescribed a biologic, which Dr. Eger considers an important steroid-sparing option. She conceded that many of those not on a biologic might not be candidates, but she believes this is another missed opportunity for reducing OCS exposure.

“In the Netherlands, we have very good access to health care, and biologics are available to anyone who needs them,” said Dr. Eger, explaining that access to these drugs is not a barrier.

The evidence overall is that not enough is being done to ensure that asthma patients are being protected from the risks of OCS, according to Dr. Eger. Citing evidence that adverse events associated with OCS begin with a cumulative lifetime prednisone-equivalent exposure of only 500 mg, she believes that clinicians should be more aggressive in intervening.

“We know that there are both acute and chronic complications associated with OCS that involve a range of organ systems,” Dr. Eger said. She listed osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and adrenal insufficiency as examples. Rescue OCS, even if used sparingly, can drive risk of OCS complications attributable to the importance of cumulative exposure.

In the session where these data were presented, the moderator, Guy Brusselle, MD, professor of asthma and immunology, Ghent (Belgium) University, labeled them “important.” However, he quibbled with Dr. Eger’s assertion that biologics represent a major opportunity to reduce OCS exposure.

“By suggesting that biologics are not being used often enough, there is an assumption that all of these patients have type 2 inflammatory asthma,” Dr. Brusselle said. “I think it makes more sense to emphasize steroid-sparing strategies, not just biologics.”

Dr. Eger did not disagree, but she emphasized that steroid-sparing alternatives are just one strategy to reduce OCS exposure, and ensuring that patients are adherent to prescribed ICS therapies and are using them correctly might have an even greater impact.

Dr. Eger reports no potential conflicts of interest.

MADRID – Two newly published but previously reported phase 3 trials associated triple therapy in a single inhaler with a 23% reduction (P = .008) in asthma exacerbations relative to a two-drug inhaler, but fresh data from a prespecified analysis presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society has identified those patients most likely to benefit.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Six easily identifiable factors appear to be associated with the most prominent response to treatment and may help in the treatment step-up decision at the point of care,” reported Dave Singh, MD, professor in the division of infection, immunity, and respiratory medicine, University of Manchester (England).

The six factors associated with a lower relative risk (RR) of severe exacerbations were derived from the phase 3 TRIMARIN and TRIGGER trials. The primary results of these trials were presented several months ago at the 2019 American Thoracic Society (ATS) meeting, but the full data were published on the day that Dr. Singh spoke at the ERS.

To identify predictors of response, the pooled analysis of TRIMARIN and TRIGGER was prespecified. Both of these trials, which were similarly designed, compared a single inhaler of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to a single ICS/LABA inhaler.

On the basis of risk for severe exacerbations, greater protection from triple therapy relative to a conventional ICS/LABA inhaler was identified for those with a high degree of reversibility (defined as greater than 400 mL) relative to those with a lower degree (RR, 0.729; P = .024), those with a body mass index less than 25 kg/m² relative to a higher BMI (RR, 0.570; P = .005), those with only one exacerbation in the previous 12 months relative to those with more (RR, 0.731; P = .009), never-smokers relative to those with smoking history (RR, 0.764; P = .013), those younger than age 65 years relative to older (RR, 0.770; P = .17), and males relative to females (RR, 0.651; P = .009).

“This gives us six factors to consider when you are thinking about stepping up to triple therapy and are trying to determine which patients would benefit the most,” Dr. Singh said.

Both the TRIMARIN and the TRIGGER trials were double blind and placebo controlled. In both, the experimental arm was a single inhaler triple therapy of the ICS beclomethasone, the LABA formoterol, and the LAMA glycopyrronium. The control arm was a single inhaler combination of beclomethasone and formoterol. All inhalers were used twice daily.

TRIMARIN, with 171 participating sites in 16 countries, randomized 1,155 patients to the triple-drug inhaler with a moderate dose of ICS (100 mcg) or to the ICS/LABA inhaler. In TRIGGER, with 221 sites in 17 countries, 1,437 patients were randomized to one of three arms. Both the triple-drug inhaler arm and the ICS/LABA arm contained a higher dose of ICS (200 mcg) than in TRIMARIN. In an open-label third arm, patients also received the higher dose of ICS plus LABA and a second inhaler with tiotropium. The formoterol dose in all arms of both studies was 6 mcg.

As reported at the ATS and now published in the Lancet, the reduction in exacerbations on single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant when the data were pooled (even though the reduction in the TRIGGER study fell short of statistical significance). The median improvement in lung function for single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant in both TRIMARIN (57 mL; P = .008) and TRIGGER (73 mL; P = .0025).

In discussing the new pooled analysis of response predictors in TRIMARIN/TRIGGER, the ERS-invited discussant, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, expressed particular interest in reversibility. A positive reversibility test to salbutamol was an entry criterion for both trials, but Dr. Porsbjerg pointed out that a greater response in those with the highest reversibility suggests these patients have a phenotype in which bronchodilation is a more important driver of disease than is inflammation.

While conceding that this was possible, Dr. Singh cautioned that he considers these predictors of response to be “exploratory.” He believes that the TRIMARIN/TRIGGER studies were not designed to tease out the relative importance of mechanisms of asthma in response to the assigned therapies. However, he believes the response predictor analysis is a step in this direction, which might be valuable for better individualizing therapy.

The studies were funded by Chiesi Farmaceutici. Dr. Singh reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Virchow JC et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 30. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32215-9.

MADRID – Two newly published but previously reported phase 3 trials associated triple therapy in a single inhaler with a 23% reduction (P = .008) in asthma exacerbations relative to a two-drug inhaler, but fresh data from a prespecified analysis presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society has identified those patients most likely to benefit.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Six easily identifiable factors appear to be associated with the most prominent response to treatment and may help in the treatment step-up decision at the point of care,” reported Dave Singh, MD, professor in the division of infection, immunity, and respiratory medicine, University of Manchester (England).

The six factors associated with a lower relative risk (RR) of severe exacerbations were derived from the phase 3 TRIMARIN and TRIGGER trials. The primary results of these trials were presented several months ago at the 2019 American Thoracic Society (ATS) meeting, but the full data were published on the day that Dr. Singh spoke at the ERS.

To identify predictors of response, the pooled analysis of TRIMARIN and TRIGGER was prespecified. Both of these trials, which were similarly designed, compared a single inhaler of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to a single ICS/LABA inhaler.

On the basis of risk for severe exacerbations, greater protection from triple therapy relative to a conventional ICS/LABA inhaler was identified for those with a high degree of reversibility (defined as greater than 400 mL) relative to those with a lower degree (RR, 0.729; P = .024), those with a body mass index less than 25 kg/m² relative to a higher BMI (RR, 0.570; P = .005), those with only one exacerbation in the previous 12 months relative to those with more (RR, 0.731; P = .009), never-smokers relative to those with smoking history (RR, 0.764; P = .013), those younger than age 65 years relative to older (RR, 0.770; P = .17), and males relative to females (RR, 0.651; P = .009).

“This gives us six factors to consider when you are thinking about stepping up to triple therapy and are trying to determine which patients would benefit the most,” Dr. Singh said.

Both the TRIMARIN and the TRIGGER trials were double blind and placebo controlled. In both, the experimental arm was a single inhaler triple therapy of the ICS beclomethasone, the LABA formoterol, and the LAMA glycopyrronium. The control arm was a single inhaler combination of beclomethasone and formoterol. All inhalers were used twice daily.

TRIMARIN, with 171 participating sites in 16 countries, randomized 1,155 patients to the triple-drug inhaler with a moderate dose of ICS (100 mcg) or to the ICS/LABA inhaler. In TRIGGER, with 221 sites in 17 countries, 1,437 patients were randomized to one of three arms. Both the triple-drug inhaler arm and the ICS/LABA arm contained a higher dose of ICS (200 mcg) than in TRIMARIN. In an open-label third arm, patients also received the higher dose of ICS plus LABA and a second inhaler with tiotropium. The formoterol dose in all arms of both studies was 6 mcg.

As reported at the ATS and now published in the Lancet, the reduction in exacerbations on single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant when the data were pooled (even though the reduction in the TRIGGER study fell short of statistical significance). The median improvement in lung function for single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant in both TRIMARIN (57 mL; P = .008) and TRIGGER (73 mL; P = .0025).

In discussing the new pooled analysis of response predictors in TRIMARIN/TRIGGER, the ERS-invited discussant, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, expressed particular interest in reversibility. A positive reversibility test to salbutamol was an entry criterion for both trials, but Dr. Porsbjerg pointed out that a greater response in those with the highest reversibility suggests these patients have a phenotype in which bronchodilation is a more important driver of disease than is inflammation.

While conceding that this was possible, Dr. Singh cautioned that he considers these predictors of response to be “exploratory.” He believes that the TRIMARIN/TRIGGER studies were not designed to tease out the relative importance of mechanisms of asthma in response to the assigned therapies. However, he believes the response predictor analysis is a step in this direction, which might be valuable for better individualizing therapy.

The studies were funded by Chiesi Farmaceutici. Dr. Singh reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Virchow JC et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 30. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32215-9.

MADRID – Two newly published but previously reported phase 3 trials associated triple therapy in a single inhaler with a 23% reduction (P = .008) in asthma exacerbations relative to a two-drug inhaler, but fresh data from a prespecified analysis presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society has identified those patients most likely to benefit.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Six easily identifiable factors appear to be associated with the most prominent response to treatment and may help in the treatment step-up decision at the point of care,” reported Dave Singh, MD, professor in the division of infection, immunity, and respiratory medicine, University of Manchester (England).

The six factors associated with a lower relative risk (RR) of severe exacerbations were derived from the phase 3 TRIMARIN and TRIGGER trials. The primary results of these trials were presented several months ago at the 2019 American Thoracic Society (ATS) meeting, but the full data were published on the day that Dr. Singh spoke at the ERS.

To identify predictors of response, the pooled analysis of TRIMARIN and TRIGGER was prespecified. Both of these trials, which were similarly designed, compared a single inhaler of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to a single ICS/LABA inhaler.

On the basis of risk for severe exacerbations, greater protection from triple therapy relative to a conventional ICS/LABA inhaler was identified for those with a high degree of reversibility (defined as greater than 400 mL) relative to those with a lower degree (RR, 0.729; P = .024), those with a body mass index less than 25 kg/m² relative to a higher BMI (RR, 0.570; P = .005), those with only one exacerbation in the previous 12 months relative to those with more (RR, 0.731; P = .009), never-smokers relative to those with smoking history (RR, 0.764; P = .013), those younger than age 65 years relative to older (RR, 0.770; P = .17), and males relative to females (RR, 0.651; P = .009).

“This gives us six factors to consider when you are thinking about stepping up to triple therapy and are trying to determine which patients would benefit the most,” Dr. Singh said.

Both the TRIMARIN and the TRIGGER trials were double blind and placebo controlled. In both, the experimental arm was a single inhaler triple therapy of the ICS beclomethasone, the LABA formoterol, and the LAMA glycopyrronium. The control arm was a single inhaler combination of beclomethasone and formoterol. All inhalers were used twice daily.

TRIMARIN, with 171 participating sites in 16 countries, randomized 1,155 patients to the triple-drug inhaler with a moderate dose of ICS (100 mcg) or to the ICS/LABA inhaler. In TRIGGER, with 221 sites in 17 countries, 1,437 patients were randomized to one of three arms. Both the triple-drug inhaler arm and the ICS/LABA arm contained a higher dose of ICS (200 mcg) than in TRIMARIN. In an open-label third arm, patients also received the higher dose of ICS plus LABA and a second inhaler with tiotropium. The formoterol dose in all arms of both studies was 6 mcg.

As reported at the ATS and now published in the Lancet, the reduction in exacerbations on single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant when the data were pooled (even though the reduction in the TRIGGER study fell short of statistical significance). The median improvement in lung function for single inhaler triple therapy relative to ICS/LABA was significant in both TRIMARIN (57 mL; P = .008) and TRIGGER (73 mL; P = .0025).

In discussing the new pooled analysis of response predictors in TRIMARIN/TRIGGER, the ERS-invited discussant, Celeste M. Porsbjerg, MD, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, expressed particular interest in reversibility. A positive reversibility test to salbutamol was an entry criterion for both trials, but Dr. Porsbjerg pointed out that a greater response in those with the highest reversibility suggests these patients have a phenotype in which bronchodilation is a more important driver of disease than is inflammation.

While conceding that this was possible, Dr. Singh cautioned that he considers these predictors of response to be “exploratory.” He believes that the TRIMARIN/TRIGGER studies were not designed to tease out the relative importance of mechanisms of asthma in response to the assigned therapies. However, he believes the response predictor analysis is a step in this direction, which might be valuable for better individualizing therapy.

The studies were funded by Chiesi Farmaceutici. Dr. Singh reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Virchow JC et al. Lancet. 2019 Sep 30. doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32215-9.

Elevated serum levels of circulating sex hormones were found to be associated with lower odds of asthma in women, possibly explaining in part the different prevalence of asthma in men and women, according to the findings of a large cross-sectional population based study.

Yueh-Ying Han, PhD, of the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and colleagues investigated the role of free testosterone and estradiol levels and current asthma among adults. The impact of obesity on that association was also examined. The investigators analyzed data from 7,615 adults (3,953 men and 3,662 women) who participated in the 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The data included health interviews, examination components, and laboratory tests on each patient. Serum samples were analyzed by the division of laboratory sciences of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Logistic regression was used for the multivariable analysis of sex hormone levels (as quartiles) and current asthma, and the analysis was done separately on men and women. Pregnant women were excluded, in addition to individuals with incomplete data. The exclusions tended to be Hispanic, former smokers, lower income, and lacking private insurance. The overall prevalence of current asthma in the sample was 9% (6% in men and 13% in women).

Three models were generated based on serum levels in women and in men.

For model 1 (unadjusted for estradiol), women whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 30%-45% significantly lower odds of having current asthma than those whose serum testosterone level was in the lowest quartile. Among men, those whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 12%-13% lower odds for current asthma.

For model 2 (unadjusted for free testosterone), women whose serum estradiol levels were in the third quartile had 34% significantly lower odds of having current asthma than those whose estradiol levels were in the lowest quartile. The findings were similar for men, that is, those whose serum estradiol levels were in the third quartile had 30% lower odds for having asthma, compared with those with in the lowest quartile.

For model 3 (a multivariable model including serum levels of both estradiol and free testosterone), women whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 30% and 44% lower odds of current asthma than those whose serum testosterone levels were in the lowest quartile. But in this multivariable model, the association between serum estradiol and current asthma was not significant. Among men (models 1-3), the magnitude of the estimated effect of serum testosterone and serum estradiol on current asthma was similar to that observed in female participants, but neither serum testosterone nor serum estradiol was significantly associated with current asthma.

The investigators then analyzed the impact of obesity on the relationship between serum hormone levels and obesity. Obesity was defined as body mass index equal to or greater than 30 kg/m². A total of 1,370 men and 1,653 women were included in this analysis. In multivariable analyses of the obese participants, adjustment without (model 1) and with (model 3) serum estradiol, serum free-testosterone levels in the highest (fourth) quartile were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in obese women. In multivariable analyses without (model 2) and with (model 3), serum estradiol levels above the first quartile were significantly associated with reduced odds of current asthma in obese women.

In contrast to the results in obese women, neither serum free testosterone nor serum estradiol was significantly associated with current asthma in obese men or nonobese women.

Dr. Han and coauthors suggested a possible mechanism of the role of sex hormones in asthma. “Androgens such as testosterone may reduce innate and adaptive immune responses, while estrogen and progesterone may enhance T-helper cell type 2 allergic airway inflammation.”

They concluded: “We found that elevated serum levels of both free testosterone and estradiol were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in obese women, and that elevated levels of serum estradiol were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in nonobese men. Our findings further suggest that sex steroid hormones play a role in known sex differences in asthma among adults.”

One coauthor has received research materials from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (inhaled steroids), as well as Pharmavite (vitamin D and placebo capsules), to provide medications free of cost to participants in National Institutes for Health–funded studies, unrelated to the current work. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Han Y-Y et al. J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0996OC.

Elevated serum levels of circulating sex hormones were found to be associated with lower odds of asthma in women, possibly explaining in part the different prevalence of asthma in men and women, according to the findings of a large cross-sectional population based study.

Yueh-Ying Han, PhD, of the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and colleagues investigated the role of free testosterone and estradiol levels and current asthma among adults. The impact of obesity on that association was also examined. The investigators analyzed data from 7,615 adults (3,953 men and 3,662 women) who participated in the 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The data included health interviews, examination components, and laboratory tests on each patient. Serum samples were analyzed by the division of laboratory sciences of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Logistic regression was used for the multivariable analysis of sex hormone levels (as quartiles) and current asthma, and the analysis was done separately on men and women. Pregnant women were excluded, in addition to individuals with incomplete data. The exclusions tended to be Hispanic, former smokers, lower income, and lacking private insurance. The overall prevalence of current asthma in the sample was 9% (6% in men and 13% in women).

Three models were generated based on serum levels in women and in men.

For model 1 (unadjusted for estradiol), women whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 30%-45% significantly lower odds of having current asthma than those whose serum testosterone level was in the lowest quartile. Among men, those whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 12%-13% lower odds for current asthma.

For model 2 (unadjusted for free testosterone), women whose serum estradiol levels were in the third quartile had 34% significantly lower odds of having current asthma than those whose estradiol levels were in the lowest quartile. The findings were similar for men, that is, those whose serum estradiol levels were in the third quartile had 30% lower odds for having asthma, compared with those with in the lowest quartile.

For model 3 (a multivariable model including serum levels of both estradiol and free testosterone), women whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 30% and 44% lower odds of current asthma than those whose serum testosterone levels were in the lowest quartile. But in this multivariable model, the association between serum estradiol and current asthma was not significant. Among men (models 1-3), the magnitude of the estimated effect of serum testosterone and serum estradiol on current asthma was similar to that observed in female participants, but neither serum testosterone nor serum estradiol was significantly associated with current asthma.

The investigators then analyzed the impact of obesity on the relationship between serum hormone levels and obesity. Obesity was defined as body mass index equal to or greater than 30 kg/m². A total of 1,370 men and 1,653 women were included in this analysis. In multivariable analyses of the obese participants, adjustment without (model 1) and with (model 3) serum estradiol, serum free-testosterone levels in the highest (fourth) quartile were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in obese women. In multivariable analyses without (model 2) and with (model 3), serum estradiol levels above the first quartile were significantly associated with reduced odds of current asthma in obese women.

In contrast to the results in obese women, neither serum free testosterone nor serum estradiol was significantly associated with current asthma in obese men or nonobese women.

Dr. Han and coauthors suggested a possible mechanism of the role of sex hormones in asthma. “Androgens such as testosterone may reduce innate and adaptive immune responses, while estrogen and progesterone may enhance T-helper cell type 2 allergic airway inflammation.”

They concluded: “We found that elevated serum levels of both free testosterone and estradiol were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in obese women, and that elevated levels of serum estradiol were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in nonobese men. Our findings further suggest that sex steroid hormones play a role in known sex differences in asthma among adults.”

One coauthor has received research materials from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (inhaled steroids), as well as Pharmavite (vitamin D and placebo capsules), to provide medications free of cost to participants in National Institutes for Health–funded studies, unrelated to the current work. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Han Y-Y et al. J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0996OC.

Elevated serum levels of circulating sex hormones were found to be associated with lower odds of asthma in women, possibly explaining in part the different prevalence of asthma in men and women, according to the findings of a large cross-sectional population based study.

Yueh-Ying Han, PhD, of the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and colleagues investigated the role of free testosterone and estradiol levels and current asthma among adults. The impact of obesity on that association was also examined. The investigators analyzed data from 7,615 adults (3,953 men and 3,662 women) who participated in the 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The data included health interviews, examination components, and laboratory tests on each patient. Serum samples were analyzed by the division of laboratory sciences of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Logistic regression was used for the multivariable analysis of sex hormone levels (as quartiles) and current asthma, and the analysis was done separately on men and women. Pregnant women were excluded, in addition to individuals with incomplete data. The exclusions tended to be Hispanic, former smokers, lower income, and lacking private insurance. The overall prevalence of current asthma in the sample was 9% (6% in men and 13% in women).

Three models were generated based on serum levels in women and in men.

For model 1 (unadjusted for estradiol), women whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 30%-45% significantly lower odds of having current asthma than those whose serum testosterone level was in the lowest quartile. Among men, those whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 12%-13% lower odds for current asthma.

For model 2 (unadjusted for free testosterone), women whose serum estradiol levels were in the third quartile had 34% significantly lower odds of having current asthma than those whose estradiol levels were in the lowest quartile. The findings were similar for men, that is, those whose serum estradiol levels were in the third quartile had 30% lower odds for having asthma, compared with those with in the lowest quartile.

For model 3 (a multivariable model including serum levels of both estradiol and free testosterone), women whose serum testosterone levels were in the second and fourth quartiles had 30% and 44% lower odds of current asthma than those whose serum testosterone levels were in the lowest quartile. But in this multivariable model, the association between serum estradiol and current asthma was not significant. Among men (models 1-3), the magnitude of the estimated effect of serum testosterone and serum estradiol on current asthma was similar to that observed in female participants, but neither serum testosterone nor serum estradiol was significantly associated with current asthma.

The investigators then analyzed the impact of obesity on the relationship between serum hormone levels and obesity. Obesity was defined as body mass index equal to or greater than 30 kg/m². A total of 1,370 men and 1,653 women were included in this analysis. In multivariable analyses of the obese participants, adjustment without (model 1) and with (model 3) serum estradiol, serum free-testosterone levels in the highest (fourth) quartile were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in obese women. In multivariable analyses without (model 2) and with (model 3), serum estradiol levels above the first quartile were significantly associated with reduced odds of current asthma in obese women.

In contrast to the results in obese women, neither serum free testosterone nor serum estradiol was significantly associated with current asthma in obese men or nonobese women.

Dr. Han and coauthors suggested a possible mechanism of the role of sex hormones in asthma. “Androgens such as testosterone may reduce innate and adaptive immune responses, while estrogen and progesterone may enhance T-helper cell type 2 allergic airway inflammation.”

They concluded: “We found that elevated serum levels of both free testosterone and estradiol were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in obese women, and that elevated levels of serum estradiol were significantly associated with reduced odds of asthma in nonobese men. Our findings further suggest that sex steroid hormones play a role in known sex differences in asthma among adults.”

One coauthor has received research materials from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (inhaled steroids), as well as Pharmavite (vitamin D and placebo capsules), to provide medications free of cost to participants in National Institutes for Health–funded studies, unrelated to the current work. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Han Y-Y et al. J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0996OC.

The use of a grass-based allergy immunotherapy (AIT) lowered the risk of progression from milder to more severe asthma, according to the results of a large, real-world, industry-sponsored, observational study.

Photo courtesy Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The researchers analyzed a cohort of 1,739,440 patients aged 12 years and older using 2005-2014 data from a statutory health insurance database in Germany. From this population, 39,167 individuals aged 14 years or older were classified as having incident asthma during the observation period and were included in the study.

The severity of asthma was classified according to the treatment steps recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA).

Among these, 4,111 patients (10.5%) received AIT. AIT use was associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of asthma progression from GINA step 1 to step 3 (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80‐0.95) and GINA step 3 to step 4 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.74).

Medications for GINA step 2 (3.5%) and GINA step 5 (0.03%) were rarely prescribed, so the researchers could not analyze the transition between GINA steps 1 and 2, step 2 and 3, and step 4 and 5.

A total of 8,726 patients had at least one transition between GINA steps 1, 3, or 4, and 1,085 had two transitions, though not all 39,167 patients were under risk of severity progression into all GINA steps, according to the authors.

The findings are consistent with earlier studies that indicate grass-based immunotherapy can effectively treat asthma symptoms and potentially asthma progression (J Allergy Clin Immuno. 2012;129[3];717-25; J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141[2]:529‐38).

“This study indicates that AIT may modify the course of asthma. Our study supports the assumption that treatment with AIT may prevent the progression from mild to more severe asthma,” the authors concluded.

The study was financially supported by ALK‐Abelló; several of the authors were also employees of or received funding from the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schmitt J et al. Allergy. 2019. doi: 10.1111/all.14020.

The use of a grass-based allergy immunotherapy (AIT) lowered the risk of progression from milder to more severe asthma, according to the results of a large, real-world, industry-sponsored, observational study.

Photo courtesy Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The researchers analyzed a cohort of 1,739,440 patients aged 12 years and older using 2005-2014 data from a statutory health insurance database in Germany. From this population, 39,167 individuals aged 14 years or older were classified as having incident asthma during the observation period and were included in the study.

The severity of asthma was classified according to the treatment steps recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA).

Among these, 4,111 patients (10.5%) received AIT. AIT use was associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of asthma progression from GINA step 1 to step 3 (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80‐0.95) and GINA step 3 to step 4 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.74).

Medications for GINA step 2 (3.5%) and GINA step 5 (0.03%) were rarely prescribed, so the researchers could not analyze the transition between GINA steps 1 and 2, step 2 and 3, and step 4 and 5.

A total of 8,726 patients had at least one transition between GINA steps 1, 3, or 4, and 1,085 had two transitions, though not all 39,167 patients were under risk of severity progression into all GINA steps, according to the authors.

The findings are consistent with earlier studies that indicate grass-based immunotherapy can effectively treat asthma symptoms and potentially asthma progression (J Allergy Clin Immuno. 2012;129[3];717-25; J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141[2]:529‐38).

“This study indicates that AIT may modify the course of asthma. Our study supports the assumption that treatment with AIT may prevent the progression from mild to more severe asthma,” the authors concluded.

The study was financially supported by ALK‐Abelló; several of the authors were also employees of or received funding from the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schmitt J et al. Allergy. 2019. doi: 10.1111/all.14020.

The use of a grass-based allergy immunotherapy (AIT) lowered the risk of progression from milder to more severe asthma, according to the results of a large, real-world, industry-sponsored, observational study.

Photo courtesy Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The researchers analyzed a cohort of 1,739,440 patients aged 12 years and older using 2005-2014 data from a statutory health insurance database in Germany. From this population, 39,167 individuals aged 14 years or older were classified as having incident asthma during the observation period and were included in the study.

The severity of asthma was classified according to the treatment steps recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA).

Among these, 4,111 patients (10.5%) received AIT. AIT use was associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of asthma progression from GINA step 1 to step 3 (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.80‐0.95) and GINA step 3 to step 4 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.74).

Medications for GINA step 2 (3.5%) and GINA step 5 (0.03%) were rarely prescribed, so the researchers could not analyze the transition between GINA steps 1 and 2, step 2 and 3, and step 4 and 5.

A total of 8,726 patients had at least one transition between GINA steps 1, 3, or 4, and 1,085 had two transitions, though not all 39,167 patients were under risk of severity progression into all GINA steps, according to the authors.

The findings are consistent with earlier studies that indicate grass-based immunotherapy can effectively treat asthma symptoms and potentially asthma progression (J Allergy Clin Immuno. 2012;129[3];717-25; J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141[2]:529‐38).

“This study indicates that AIT may modify the course of asthma. Our study supports the assumption that treatment with AIT may prevent the progression from mild to more severe asthma,” the authors concluded.

The study was financially supported by ALK‐Abelló; several of the authors were also employees of or received funding from the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schmitt J et al. Allergy. 2019. doi: 10.1111/all.14020.

Almost half of black children with poorly controlled asthma showed a superior response to increased inhaled glucocorticoids over long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from 280 children aged 5-11 years with at least one grandparent identified as black.

Previous studies have suggested that long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) may be more effective for patients with poorly controlled asthma, but such step-up therapy has not been well studied in black patients, wrote Michael E. Wechsler, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and colleagues.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers reported results of two parallel BARD (Best African American Response to Asthma Drugs) trials conducted at nine centers between January 2014 and March 2016 of individuals with poorly controlled asthma. One trial included 280 children aged 5-11 years (average age, 8.5 years); the second trial included adolescents aged 12 years and older and adults (average age, 37 years) who had family backgrounds that were similar to those of the children.

The researchers randomized the children to four groups to compare the following protocols: doubling the dose of a glucocorticoid (fluticasone propionate) to a dose of 100 mcg, twice daily (the double-fluticasone group); doubling the dose of fluticasone to 100 mcg and adding 50 mcg of the LABA salmeterol (the salmeterol/double-fluticasone group); quintupling the dose of fluticasone to 250 mcg (the quintuple-fluticasone group); or quintupling the dose of fluticasone to 250 mcg and adding 50 mcg of salmeterol (the salmeterol/quintuple-fluticasone group). The trial consisted of a four-way crossover design with each treatment period lasting 14 weeks.

The primary outcome was a composite measure including asthma exacerbations, asthma control days, and percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in the first second at the end of each treatment.

Overall, a superior response occurred in 53% of the salmeterol/double-fluticasone group, 41% of the double-fluticasone group, 43% of the salmeterol/quintuple fluticasone group, and 47% of the quintuple-fluticasone group.

The superior response was 46% for both groups when the researchers compared a quintupled dose of fluticasone propionate (250 mcg) with a two step–up strategy of adding salmeterol at a dose of 50 mcg and increasing the dose of fluticasone to 100 mcg.

“In contrast to black adults and white persons of all ages, almost half the children who had at least one grandparent who identified as black and who had poorly controlled asthma had a superior response to an increased dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid over the addition of a LABA,” Dr. Wechsler and coauthors wrote. No more than 12% of the children in any treatment group did not have a superior response. No significant differences in reports of respiratory tract infections or pneumonia were seen between the groups. Children younger than 8 years showed a decrease in the ratio of urinary cortisol to creatinine with an increased dose of inhaled glucocorticoids.

In the adolescent and adult study using the same treatment protocols, 20%-25% of patients did not have a differential outcome between treatments. “In adolescents and adults, the addition of a LABA was more likely to produce superior responses than increasing the dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid,” Dr. Wechsler and coauthors wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess long-term effects on growth and inability to detect biomarkers associated with responses to specific therapies, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that black children with poorly controlled asthma can benefit from additional inhaled glucocorticoids, and larger studies are needed to identify the best treatment for this patient population.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wechsler reported relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Equillium, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron, resTORbio, Sanofi, and others. Coauthors identified relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Wechsler ME et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905560.

Almost half of black children with poorly controlled asthma showed a superior response to increased inhaled glucocorticoids over long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from 280 children aged 5-11 years with at least one grandparent identified as black.

Previous studies have suggested that long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) may be more effective for patients with poorly controlled asthma, but such step-up therapy has not been well studied in black patients, wrote Michael E. Wechsler, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and colleagues.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers reported results of two parallel BARD (Best African American Response to Asthma Drugs) trials conducted at nine centers between January 2014 and March 2016 of individuals with poorly controlled asthma. One trial included 280 children aged 5-11 years (average age, 8.5 years); the second trial included adolescents aged 12 years and older and adults (average age, 37 years) who had family backgrounds that were similar to those of the children.

The researchers randomized the children to four groups to compare the following protocols: doubling the dose of a glucocorticoid (fluticasone propionate) to a dose of 100 mcg, twice daily (the double-fluticasone group); doubling the dose of fluticasone to 100 mcg and adding 50 mcg of the LABA salmeterol (the salmeterol/double-fluticasone group); quintupling the dose of fluticasone to 250 mcg (the quintuple-fluticasone group); or quintupling the dose of fluticasone to 250 mcg and adding 50 mcg of salmeterol (the salmeterol/quintuple-fluticasone group). The trial consisted of a four-way crossover design with each treatment period lasting 14 weeks.

The primary outcome was a composite measure including asthma exacerbations, asthma control days, and percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in the first second at the end of each treatment.

Overall, a superior response occurred in 53% of the salmeterol/double-fluticasone group, 41% of the double-fluticasone group, 43% of the salmeterol/quintuple fluticasone group, and 47% of the quintuple-fluticasone group.

The superior response was 46% for both groups when the researchers compared a quintupled dose of fluticasone propionate (250 mcg) with a two step–up strategy of adding salmeterol at a dose of 50 mcg and increasing the dose of fluticasone to 100 mcg.

“In contrast to black adults and white persons of all ages, almost half the children who had at least one grandparent who identified as black and who had poorly controlled asthma had a superior response to an increased dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid over the addition of a LABA,” Dr. Wechsler and coauthors wrote. No more than 12% of the children in any treatment group did not have a superior response. No significant differences in reports of respiratory tract infections or pneumonia were seen between the groups. Children younger than 8 years showed a decrease in the ratio of urinary cortisol to creatinine with an increased dose of inhaled glucocorticoids.

In the adolescent and adult study using the same treatment protocols, 20%-25% of patients did not have a differential outcome between treatments. “In adolescents and adults, the addition of a LABA was more likely to produce superior responses than increasing the dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid,” Dr. Wechsler and coauthors wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess long-term effects on growth and inability to detect biomarkers associated with responses to specific therapies, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that black children with poorly controlled asthma can benefit from additional inhaled glucocorticoids, and larger studies are needed to identify the best treatment for this patient population.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wechsler reported relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Equillium, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron, resTORbio, Sanofi, and others. Coauthors identified relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Wechsler ME et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905560.

Almost half of black children with poorly controlled asthma showed a superior response to increased inhaled glucocorticoids over long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from 280 children aged 5-11 years with at least one grandparent identified as black.

Previous studies have suggested that long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) may be more effective for patients with poorly controlled asthma, but such step-up therapy has not been well studied in black patients, wrote Michael E. Wechsler, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and colleagues.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers reported results of two parallel BARD (Best African American Response to Asthma Drugs) trials conducted at nine centers between January 2014 and March 2016 of individuals with poorly controlled asthma. One trial included 280 children aged 5-11 years (average age, 8.5 years); the second trial included adolescents aged 12 years and older and adults (average age, 37 years) who had family backgrounds that were similar to those of the children.

The researchers randomized the children to four groups to compare the following protocols: doubling the dose of a glucocorticoid (fluticasone propionate) to a dose of 100 mcg, twice daily (the double-fluticasone group); doubling the dose of fluticasone to 100 mcg and adding 50 mcg of the LABA salmeterol (the salmeterol/double-fluticasone group); quintupling the dose of fluticasone to 250 mcg (the quintuple-fluticasone group); or quintupling the dose of fluticasone to 250 mcg and adding 50 mcg of salmeterol (the salmeterol/quintuple-fluticasone group). The trial consisted of a four-way crossover design with each treatment period lasting 14 weeks.

The primary outcome was a composite measure including asthma exacerbations, asthma control days, and percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in the first second at the end of each treatment.

Overall, a superior response occurred in 53% of the salmeterol/double-fluticasone group, 41% of the double-fluticasone group, 43% of the salmeterol/quintuple fluticasone group, and 47% of the quintuple-fluticasone group.

The superior response was 46% for both groups when the researchers compared a quintupled dose of fluticasone propionate (250 mcg) with a two step–up strategy of adding salmeterol at a dose of 50 mcg and increasing the dose of fluticasone to 100 mcg.

“In contrast to black adults and white persons of all ages, almost half the children who had at least one grandparent who identified as black and who had poorly controlled asthma had a superior response to an increased dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid over the addition of a LABA,” Dr. Wechsler and coauthors wrote. No more than 12% of the children in any treatment group did not have a superior response. No significant differences in reports of respiratory tract infections or pneumonia were seen between the groups. Children younger than 8 years showed a decrease in the ratio of urinary cortisol to creatinine with an increased dose of inhaled glucocorticoids.

In the adolescent and adult study using the same treatment protocols, 20%-25% of patients did not have a differential outcome between treatments. “In adolescents and adults, the addition of a LABA was more likely to produce superior responses than increasing the dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid,” Dr. Wechsler and coauthors wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess long-term effects on growth and inability to detect biomarkers associated with responses to specific therapies, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that black children with poorly controlled asthma can benefit from additional inhaled glucocorticoids, and larger studies are needed to identify the best treatment for this patient population.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wechsler reported relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Equillium, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron, resTORbio, Sanofi, and others. Coauthors identified relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Wechsler ME et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1905560.

The 2019 wildfire season is underway in many locales across the United States, exposing millions of individuals to smoky conditions that will have health consequences ranging from stinging eyes to scratchy throats to a trip to the ED for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Questions about long-term health impacts are on the minds of many, including physicians and their patients who live with cardiorespiratory conditions.

US Forest Service photo courtesy of Peter Buschmann.

John R. Balmes, MD, a pulmonologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the respiratory and cardiovascular effects of air pollutants, suggested that the best available published literature points to “pretty strong evidence for acute effects of wildfire smoke on respiratory health, meaning people with preexisting asthma and COPD are at risk for exacerbations, and probably for respiratory tract infections as well.” He said, “It’s a little less clear, but there’s good biological plausibility for increased risk of respiratory tract infections because when your alveolar macrophages are overloaded with carbon particles that are toxic to those cells, they don’t function as well as a first line of defense against bacterial infection, for example.”

The new normal of wildfires

Warmer, drier summers in recent years in the western United States and many other regions, attributed by climate experts to global climate change, have produced catastrophic wildfires (PNAS;2016 Oct 18;113[42]11770-5; Science 2006 Aug 18;313:940-3). The Camp Fire in Northern California broke out in November 2018, took the lives of at least 85 people, and cost more than $16 billion in damage. Smoke from that blaze reached hazardous levels in San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, and many other smaller towns. Other forest fires in that year caused heavy smoke conditions in Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, and Anchorage. Such events are expected to be repeated often in the coming years (Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jul 6;16[13]).

Courtesy Dr. Wayne Cascio

Wildfire smoke can contain a wide range of substances, chemicals, and gases with known and unknown cardiorespiratory implications. “Smoke is composed primarily of carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons and other organic chemicals, nitrogen oxides, trace minerals and several thousand other compounds,” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Wildfire smoke: A guide for public health officials 2019. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 2019). The EPA report noted, “Particles with diameters less than 10 mcm (particulate matter, or PM₁₀) can be inhaled into the lungs and affect the lungs, heart, and blood vessels. The smallest particles, those less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM_2.5), are the greatest risk to public health because they can reach deep into the lungs and may even make it into the bloodstream.”

Research on health impact

In early June of 2008, Wayne Cascio, MD, awoke in his Greenville, N.C., home to the stench of smoke emanating from a large peat fire burning some 65 miles away. By the time he reached the parking lot at East Carolina University in Greenville to begin his workday as chief of cardiology, the haze of smoke had thickened to the point where he could only see a few feet in front of him.

Over the next several weeks, the fire scorched 41,000 acres and produced haze and air pollution that far exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter and blanketed rural communities in the state’s eastern region. The price tag for management of the blaze reached $20 million. Because of his interest in the health effects of wildfire smoke and because of his relationship with investigators at the EPA, Dr. Cascio initiated an epidemiology study to investigate the effects of exposure on cardiorespiratory outcomes in the population affected by the fire (Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Oct;119[10]:1415-20).

By combining satellite data with syndromic surveillance drawn from hospital records in 41 counties contained in the North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool, he and his colleagues found that exposure to the peat wildfire smoke led to increases in the cumulative risk ratio for asthma (relative risk, 1.65), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR, 1.73), and pneumonia and acute bronchitis (RR, 1.59). ED visits related to cardiopulmonary symptoms and heart failure also were significantly increased (RR, 1.23 and 1.37, respectively). “That was really the first study to strongly identify a cardiac endpoint related to wildfire smoke exposure,” said Dr. Cascio, who now directs the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. “It really pointed out how little we knew about the health effects of wildfire up until that time.”

Those early findings have been replicated in subsequent research about the acute health effects of exposure to wildfire smoke, which contains PM_2.5 and other toxic substances from structures, electronic devices, and automobiles destroyed in the path of flames, including heavy metals and asbestos. Most of the work has focused on smoke-related cardiovascular and respiratory ED visits and hospitalizations.

A study of the 2008 California wildfire impact on ED visits accounted for ozone levels in addition to PM_2.5 in the smoke. During the active fire periods, PM_2.5 was significantly associated with exacerbations of asthma and COPD and these effects remained after controlling for ozone levels. PM_2.5 inhalation during the wildfires was associated with increased risk of an ED visit for asthma (RR, 1.112; 95% confidence interval, 1.087-1.138) for a 10 mcg/m³ increase in PM_2.5 and COPD (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.019-1.0825), as well as for combined respiratory visits (RR, 1.035; 95% CI, 1.023-1.046) (Environ Int. 2109 Aug;129:291-8).

Researchers who evaluated the health impacts of wildfires in California during the 2015 fire season found an increase in all-cause cardiovascular and respiratory ED visits, especially among those aged 65 years and older during smoke days. The population-based study included 1,196,233 ED visits during May 1–Sept. 30 that year. PM_2.5 concentrations were categorized as light, medium, or dense. Relative risk rose with the amount of smoke in the air. Rates of all-cause cardiovascular ED visits were elevated across levels of smoke density, with the greatest increase on dense smoke days and among those aged 65 years or older (RR,1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.22). All-cause cerebrovascular visits were associated with dense smoke days, especially among those aged 65 years and older (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.00-1.49). Respiratory conditions also were increased on dense smoke days (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.28) (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Apr 11;7:e007492. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007492).

Long-term effects unknown

When it comes to the long-term effects of wildfire smoke on human health outcomes, much less is known. In a recent literature review, Colleen E. Reid, PhD, and Melissa May Maestas, PhD, found only one study that investigated long-term respiratory health impacts of wildfire smoke, and only a few studies that have estimated future health impacts of wildfires under likely climate change scenarios (Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2019 Mar;25:179-87).

“We know that there are immediate respiratory health effects from wildfire smoke,” said Dr. Reid of the department of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder. “What’s less known is everything else. That’s challenging, because people want to know about the long-term health effects.”

Evidence from the scientific literature suggests that exposure to air pollution adversely affects cardiovascular health, but whether exposure to wildfire smoke confers a similar risk is less clear. “Until just a few years ago we haven’t been able to study wildfire exposure measures on a large scale,” said EPA scientist Ana G. Rappold, PhD, a statistician there in the environmental public health division of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. “It’s also hard to predict wildfires, so it’s hard to plan for an epidemiologic study if you don’t know where they’re going to occur.”

Dr. Rappold and colleagues examined cardiopulmonary hospitalizations among adults aged 65 years and older in 692 U.S. counties within 200 km of 123 large wildfires during 2008-2010 (Environ Health Perspect. 2019;127[3]:37006. doi: 10.1289/EHP3860). They observed that an increased risk of PM_2.5-related cardiopulmonary hospitalizations was similar on smoke and nonsmoke days across multiple lags and exposure metrics, while risk for asthma-related hospitalizations was higher during smoke days. “One hypothesis is that this was an older study population, so naturally if you’re inhaling smoke, the first organ that’s impacted in an older population is the lungs,” Dr. Rappold said. “If you go to the hospital for asthma, wheezing, or bronchitis, you are taken out of the risk pool for cardiovascular and other diseases. That could explain why in other studies we don’t see a clear cardiovascular signal as we have for air pollution studies in general. Another aspect to this study is, the exposure metric was PM_2.5, but smoke contains many other components, particularly gases, which are respiratory irritants. It could be that this triggers a higher risk for respiratory [effects] than regular episodes of high PM_2.5 exposure, just because of the additional gases that people are exposed to.”

Another complicating factor is the paucity of data about solutions to long-term exposure to wildfire smoke. “If you’re impacted by high-exposure levels for 60 days, that is not something we have experienced before,” Dr. Rappold noted. “What are the solutions for that community? What works? Can we show that by implementing community-level resilience plans with HEPA [high-efficiency particulate air] filters or other interventions, do the overall outcomes improve? Doctors are the first ones to talk with their patients about their symptoms and about how to take care of their conditions. They can clearly make a difference in emphasizing reducing exposures in a way that fits their patients individually, either reducing the amount of time spent outside, the duration of exposure, and the level of exposure. Maybe change activities based on the intensity of exposure. Don’t go for a run outside when it’s smoky, because your ventilation rate is higher and you will breathe in more smoke. Become aware of those things.”

Advising vulnerable patients

While research in this field advances, the unforgiving wildfire season looms, assuring more destruction of property and threats to cardiorespiratory health. “There are a lot of questions that research will have an opportunity to address as we go forward, including the utility and the benefit of N95 masks, the utility of HEPA filters used in the house, and even with HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning] systems,” Dr. Cascio said. “Can we really clean up the indoor air well enough to protect us from wildfire smoke?”

The way he sees it, the time is ripe for clinicians and officials in public and private practice settings to refine how they distribute information to people living in areas affected by wildfire smoke. “We can’t force people do anything, but at least if they’re informed, then they understand they can make an informed decision about how they might want to affect what they do that would limit their exposure,” he said. “As a patient, my health care system sends text and email messages to me. So, why couldn’t the hospital send out a text message or an email to all of the patients with COPD, coronary disease, and heart failure when an area is impacted by smoke, saying, ‘Check your air quality and take action if air quality is poor?’ Physicians don’t have time to do this kind of education in the office for all of their patients. I know that from experience. But if one were to only focus on those at highest risk, and encourage them to follow our guidelines, which might include doing HEPA filter treatment in the home, we probably would reduce the number of clinical events in a cost-effective way.”

[email protected]

The 2019 wildfire season is underway in many locales across the United States, exposing millions of individuals to smoky conditions that will have health consequences ranging from stinging eyes to scratchy throats to a trip to the ED for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Questions about long-term health impacts are on the minds of many, including physicians and their patients who live with cardiorespiratory conditions.

US Forest Service photo courtesy of Peter Buschmann.

John R. Balmes, MD, a pulmonologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the respiratory and cardiovascular effects of air pollutants, suggested that the best available published literature points to “pretty strong evidence for acute effects of wildfire smoke on respiratory health, meaning people with preexisting asthma and COPD are at risk for exacerbations, and probably for respiratory tract infections as well.” He said, “It’s a little less clear, but there’s good biological plausibility for increased risk of respiratory tract infections because when your alveolar macrophages are overloaded with carbon particles that are toxic to those cells, they don’t function as well as a first line of defense against bacterial infection, for example.”

The new normal of wildfires

Warmer, drier summers in recent years in the western United States and many other regions, attributed by climate experts to global climate change, have produced catastrophic wildfires (PNAS;2016 Oct 18;113[42]11770-5; Science 2006 Aug 18;313:940-3). The Camp Fire in Northern California broke out in November 2018, took the lives of at least 85 people, and cost more than $16 billion in damage. Smoke from that blaze reached hazardous levels in San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, and many other smaller towns. Other forest fires in that year caused heavy smoke conditions in Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, and Anchorage. Such events are expected to be repeated often in the coming years (Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jul 6;16[13]).

Courtesy Dr. Wayne Cascio

Wildfire smoke can contain a wide range of substances, chemicals, and gases with known and unknown cardiorespiratory implications. “Smoke is composed primarily of carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons and other organic chemicals, nitrogen oxides, trace minerals and several thousand other compounds,” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Wildfire smoke: A guide for public health officials 2019. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 2019). The EPA report noted, “Particles with diameters less than 10 mcm (particulate matter, or PM₁₀) can be inhaled into the lungs and affect the lungs, heart, and blood vessels. The smallest particles, those less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM_2.5), are the greatest risk to public health because they can reach deep into the lungs and may even make it into the bloodstream.”

Research on health impact

In early June of 2008, Wayne Cascio, MD, awoke in his Greenville, N.C., home to the stench of smoke emanating from a large peat fire burning some 65 miles away. By the time he reached the parking lot at East Carolina University in Greenville to begin his workday as chief of cardiology, the haze of smoke had thickened to the point where he could only see a few feet in front of him.

Over the next several weeks, the fire scorched 41,000 acres and produced haze and air pollution that far exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter and blanketed rural communities in the state’s eastern region. The price tag for management of the blaze reached $20 million. Because of his interest in the health effects of wildfire smoke and because of his relationship with investigators at the EPA, Dr. Cascio initiated an epidemiology study to investigate the effects of exposure on cardiorespiratory outcomes in the population affected by the fire (Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Oct;119[10]:1415-20).

By combining satellite data with syndromic surveillance drawn from hospital records in 41 counties contained in the North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool, he and his colleagues found that exposure to the peat wildfire smoke led to increases in the cumulative risk ratio for asthma (relative risk, 1.65), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR, 1.73), and pneumonia and acute bronchitis (RR, 1.59). ED visits related to cardiopulmonary symptoms and heart failure also were significantly increased (RR, 1.23 and 1.37, respectively). “That was really the first study to strongly identify a cardiac endpoint related to wildfire smoke exposure,” said Dr. Cascio, who now directs the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. “It really pointed out how little we knew about the health effects of wildfire up until that time.”

Those early findings have been replicated in subsequent research about the acute health effects of exposure to wildfire smoke, which contains PM_2.5 and other toxic substances from structures, electronic devices, and automobiles destroyed in the path of flames, including heavy metals and asbestos. Most of the work has focused on smoke-related cardiovascular and respiratory ED visits and hospitalizations.

A study of the 2008 California wildfire impact on ED visits accounted for ozone levels in addition to PM_2.5 in the smoke. During the active fire periods, PM_2.5 was significantly associated with exacerbations of asthma and COPD and these effects remained after controlling for ozone levels. PM_2.5 inhalation during the wildfires was associated with increased risk of an ED visit for asthma (RR, 1.112; 95% confidence interval, 1.087-1.138) for a 10 mcg/m³ increase in PM_2.5 and COPD (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.019-1.0825), as well as for combined respiratory visits (RR, 1.035; 95% CI, 1.023-1.046) (Environ Int. 2109 Aug;129:291-8).

Researchers who evaluated the health impacts of wildfires in California during the 2015 fire season found an increase in all-cause cardiovascular and respiratory ED visits, especially among those aged 65 years and older during smoke days. The population-based study included 1,196,233 ED visits during May 1–Sept. 30 that year. PM_2.5 concentrations were categorized as light, medium, or dense. Relative risk rose with the amount of smoke in the air. Rates of all-cause cardiovascular ED visits were elevated across levels of smoke density, with the greatest increase on dense smoke days and among those aged 65 years or older (RR,1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.22). All-cause cerebrovascular visits were associated with dense smoke days, especially among those aged 65 years and older (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.00-1.49). Respiratory conditions also were increased on dense smoke days (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.28) (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Apr 11;7:e007492. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007492).

Long-term effects unknown

When it comes to the long-term effects of wildfire smoke on human health outcomes, much less is known. In a recent literature review, Colleen E. Reid, PhD, and Melissa May Maestas, PhD, found only one study that investigated long-term respiratory health impacts of wildfire smoke, and only a few studies that have estimated future health impacts of wildfires under likely climate change scenarios (Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2019 Mar;25:179-87).

“We know that there are immediate respiratory health effects from wildfire smoke,” said Dr. Reid of the department of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder. “What’s less known is everything else. That’s challenging, because people want to know about the long-term health effects.”

Evidence from the scientific literature suggests that exposure to air pollution adversely affects cardiovascular health, but whether exposure to wildfire smoke confers a similar risk is less clear. “Until just a few years ago we haven’t been able to study wildfire exposure measures on a large scale,” said EPA scientist Ana G. Rappold, PhD, a statistician there in the environmental public health division of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. “It’s also hard to predict wildfires, so it’s hard to plan for an epidemiologic study if you don’t know where they’re going to occur.”

Dr. Rappold and colleagues examined cardiopulmonary hospitalizations among adults aged 65 years and older in 692 U.S. counties within 200 km of 123 large wildfires during 2008-2010 (Environ Health Perspect. 2019;127[3]:37006. doi: 10.1289/EHP3860). They observed that an increased risk of PM_2.5-related cardiopulmonary hospitalizations was similar on smoke and nonsmoke days across multiple lags and exposure metrics, while risk for asthma-related hospitalizations was higher during smoke days. “One hypothesis is that this was an older study population, so naturally if you’re inhaling smoke, the first organ that’s impacted in an older population is the lungs,” Dr. Rappold said. “If you go to the hospital for asthma, wheezing, or bronchitis, you are taken out of the risk pool for cardiovascular and other diseases. That could explain why in other studies we don’t see a clear cardiovascular signal as we have for air pollution studies in general. Another aspect to this study is, the exposure metric was PM_2.5, but smoke contains many other components, particularly gases, which are respiratory irritants. It could be that this triggers a higher risk for respiratory [effects] than regular episodes of high PM_2.5 exposure, just because of the additional gases that people are exposed to.”

Another complicating factor is the paucity of data about solutions to long-term exposure to wildfire smoke. “If you’re impacted by high-exposure levels for 60 days, that is not something we have experienced before,” Dr. Rappold noted. “What are the solutions for that community? What works? Can we show that by implementing community-level resilience plans with HEPA [high-efficiency particulate air] filters or other interventions, do the overall outcomes improve? Doctors are the first ones to talk with their patients about their symptoms and about how to take care of their conditions. They can clearly make a difference in emphasizing reducing exposures in a way that fits their patients individually, either reducing the amount of time spent outside, the duration of exposure, and the level of exposure. Maybe change activities based on the intensity of exposure. Don’t go for a run outside when it’s smoky, because your ventilation rate is higher and you will breathe in more smoke. Become aware of those things.”

Advising vulnerable patients

While research in this field advances, the unforgiving wildfire season looms, assuring more destruction of property and threats to cardiorespiratory health. “There are a lot of questions that research will have an opportunity to address as we go forward, including the utility and the benefit of N95 masks, the utility of HEPA filters used in the house, and even with HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning] systems,” Dr. Cascio said. “Can we really clean up the indoor air well enough to protect us from wildfire smoke?”

The way he sees it, the time is ripe for clinicians and officials in public and private practice settings to refine how they distribute information to people living in areas affected by wildfire smoke. “We can’t force people do anything, but at least if they’re informed, then they understand they can make an informed decision about how they might want to affect what they do that would limit their exposure,” he said. “As a patient, my health care system sends text and email messages to me. So, why couldn’t the hospital send out a text message or an email to all of the patients with COPD, coronary disease, and heart failure when an area is impacted by smoke, saying, ‘Check your air quality and take action if air quality is poor?’ Physicians don’t have time to do this kind of education in the office for all of their patients. I know that from experience. But if one were to only focus on those at highest risk, and encourage them to follow our guidelines, which might include doing HEPA filter treatment in the home, we probably would reduce the number of clinical events in a cost-effective way.”

[email protected]

The 2019 wildfire season is underway in many locales across the United States, exposing millions of individuals to smoky conditions that will have health consequences ranging from stinging eyes to scratchy throats to a trip to the ED for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Questions about long-term health impacts are on the minds of many, including physicians and their patients who live with cardiorespiratory conditions.

US Forest Service photo courtesy of Peter Buschmann.

John R. Balmes, MD, a pulmonologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the respiratory and cardiovascular effects of air pollutants, suggested that the best available published literature points to “pretty strong evidence for acute effects of wildfire smoke on respiratory health, meaning people with preexisting asthma and COPD are at risk for exacerbations, and probably for respiratory tract infections as well.” He said, “It’s a little less clear, but there’s good biological plausibility for increased risk of respiratory tract infections because when your alveolar macrophages are overloaded with carbon particles that are toxic to those cells, they don’t function as well as a first line of defense against bacterial infection, for example.”

The new normal of wildfires

Warmer, drier summers in recent years in the western United States and many other regions, attributed by climate experts to global climate change, have produced catastrophic wildfires (PNAS;2016 Oct 18;113[42]11770-5; Science 2006 Aug 18;313:940-3). The Camp Fire in Northern California broke out in November 2018, took the lives of at least 85 people, and cost more than $16 billion in damage. Smoke from that blaze reached hazardous levels in San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, and many other smaller towns. Other forest fires in that year caused heavy smoke conditions in Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, and Anchorage. Such events are expected to be repeated often in the coming years (Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jul 6;16[13]).

Courtesy Dr. Wayne Cascio

Wildfire smoke can contain a wide range of substances, chemicals, and gases with known and unknown cardiorespiratory implications. “Smoke is composed primarily of carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons and other organic chemicals, nitrogen oxides, trace minerals and several thousand other compounds,” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Wildfire smoke: A guide for public health officials 2019. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 2019). The EPA report noted, “Particles with diameters less than 10 mcm (particulate matter, or PM₁₀) can be inhaled into the lungs and affect the lungs, heart, and blood vessels. The smallest particles, those less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM_2.5), are the greatest risk to public health because they can reach deep into the lungs and may even make it into the bloodstream.”

Research on health impact

In early June of 2008, Wayne Cascio, MD, awoke in his Greenville, N.C., home to the stench of smoke emanating from a large peat fire burning some 65 miles away. By the time he reached the parking lot at East Carolina University in Greenville to begin his workday as chief of cardiology, the haze of smoke had thickened to the point where he could only see a few feet in front of him.

Over the next several weeks, the fire scorched 41,000 acres and produced haze and air pollution that far exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter and blanketed rural communities in the state’s eastern region. The price tag for management of the blaze reached $20 million. Because of his interest in the health effects of wildfire smoke and because of his relationship with investigators at the EPA, Dr. Cascio initiated an epidemiology study to investigate the effects of exposure on cardiorespiratory outcomes in the population affected by the fire (Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Oct;119[10]:1415-20).

By combining satellite data with syndromic surveillance drawn from hospital records in 41 counties contained in the North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool, he and his colleagues found that exposure to the peat wildfire smoke led to increases in the cumulative risk ratio for asthma (relative risk, 1.65), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR, 1.73), and pneumonia and acute bronchitis (RR, 1.59). ED visits related to cardiopulmonary symptoms and heart failure also were significantly increased (RR, 1.23 and 1.37, respectively). “That was really the first study to strongly identify a cardiac endpoint related to wildfire smoke exposure,” said Dr. Cascio, who now directs the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. “It really pointed out how little we knew about the health effects of wildfire up until that time.”

Those early findings have been replicated in subsequent research about the acute health effects of exposure to wildfire smoke, which contains PM_2.5 and other toxic substances from structures, electronic devices, and automobiles destroyed in the path of flames, including heavy metals and asbestos. Most of the work has focused on smoke-related cardiovascular and respiratory ED visits and hospitalizations.

A study of the 2008 California wildfire impact on ED visits accounted for ozone levels in addition to PM_2.5 in the smoke. During the active fire periods, PM_2.5 was significantly associated with exacerbations of asthma and COPD and these effects remained after controlling for ozone levels. PM_2.5 inhalation during the wildfires was associated with increased risk of an ED visit for asthma (RR, 1.112; 95% confidence interval, 1.087-1.138) for a 10 mcg/m³ increase in PM_2.5 and COPD (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.019-1.0825), as well as for combined respiratory visits (RR, 1.035; 95% CI, 1.023-1.046) (Environ Int. 2109 Aug;129:291-8).

Researchers who evaluated the health impacts of wildfires in California during the 2015 fire season found an increase in all-cause cardiovascular and respiratory ED visits, especially among those aged 65 years and older during smoke days. The population-based study included 1,196,233 ED visits during May 1–Sept. 30 that year. PM_2.5 concentrations were categorized as light, medium, or dense. Relative risk rose with the amount of smoke in the air. Rates of all-cause cardiovascular ED visits were elevated across levels of smoke density, with the greatest increase on dense smoke days and among those aged 65 years or older (RR,1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.22). All-cause cerebrovascular visits were associated with dense smoke days, especially among those aged 65 years and older (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.00-1.49). Respiratory conditions also were increased on dense smoke days (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.28) (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Apr 11;7:e007492. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007492).

Long-term effects unknown

When it comes to the long-term effects of wildfire smoke on human health outcomes, much less is known. In a recent literature review, Colleen E. Reid, PhD, and Melissa May Maestas, PhD, found only one study that investigated long-term respiratory health impacts of wildfire smoke, and only a few studies that have estimated future health impacts of wildfires under likely climate change scenarios (Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2019 Mar;25:179-87).

“We know that there are immediate respiratory health effects from wildfire smoke,” said Dr. Reid of the department of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder. “What’s less known is everything else. That’s challenging, because people want to know about the long-term health effects.”

Evidence from the scientific literature suggests that exposure to air pollution adversely affects cardiovascular health, but whether exposure to wildfire smoke confers a similar risk is less clear. “Until just a few years ago we haven’t been able to study wildfire exposure measures on a large scale,” said EPA scientist Ana G. Rappold, PhD, a statistician there in the environmental public health division of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. “It’s also hard to predict wildfires, so it’s hard to plan for an epidemiologic study if you don’t know where they’re going to occur.”

Dr. Rappold and colleagues examined cardiopulmonary hospitalizations among adults aged 65 years and older in 692 U.S. counties within 200 km of 123 large wildfires during 2008-2010 (Environ Health Perspect. 2019;127[3]:37006. doi: 10.1289/EHP3860). They observed that an increased risk of PM_2.5-related cardiopulmonary hospitalizations was similar on smoke and nonsmoke days across multiple lags and exposure metrics, while risk for asthma-related hospitalizations was higher during smoke days. “One hypothesis is that this was an older study population, so naturally if you’re inhaling smoke, the first organ that’s impacted in an older population is the lungs,” Dr. Rappold said. “If you go to the hospital for asthma, wheezing, or bronchitis, you are taken out of the risk pool for cardiovascular and other diseases. That could explain why in other studies we don’t see a clear cardiovascular signal as we have for air pollution studies in general. Another aspect to this study is, the exposure metric was PM_2.5, but smoke contains many other components, particularly gases, which are respiratory irritants. It could be that this triggers a higher risk for respiratory [effects] than regular episodes of high PM_2.5 exposure, just because of the additional gases that people are exposed to.”

Another complicating factor is the paucity of data about solutions to long-term exposure to wildfire smoke. “If you’re impacted by high-exposure levels for 60 days, that is not something we have experienced before,” Dr. Rappold noted. “What are the solutions for that community? What works? Can we show that by implementing community-level resilience plans with HEPA [high-efficiency particulate air] filters or other interventions, do the overall outcomes improve? Doctors are the first ones to talk with their patients about their symptoms and about how to take care of their conditions. They can clearly make a difference in emphasizing reducing exposures in a way that fits their patients individually, either reducing the amount of time spent outside, the duration of exposure, and the level of exposure. Maybe change activities based on the intensity of exposure. Don’t go for a run outside when it’s smoky, because your ventilation rate is higher and you will breathe in more smoke. Become aware of those things.”

Advising vulnerable patients

While research in this field advances, the unforgiving wildfire season looms, assuring more destruction of property and threats to cardiorespiratory health. “There are a lot of questions that research will have an opportunity to address as we go forward, including the utility and the benefit of N95 masks, the utility of HEPA filters used in the house, and even with HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning] systems,” Dr. Cascio said. “Can we really clean up the indoor air well enough to protect us from wildfire smoke?”

The way he sees it, the time is ripe for clinicians and officials in public and private practice settings to refine how they distribute information to people living in areas affected by wildfire smoke. “We can’t force people do anything, but at least if they’re informed, then they understand they can make an informed decision about how they might want to affect what they do that would limit their exposure,” he said. “As a patient, my health care system sends text and email messages to me. So, why couldn’t the hospital send out a text message or an email to all of the patients with COPD, coronary disease, and heart failure when an area is impacted by smoke, saying, ‘Check your air quality and take action if air quality is poor?’ Physicians don’t have time to do this kind of education in the office for all of their patients. I know that from experience. But if one were to only focus on those at highest risk, and encourage them to follow our guidelines, which might include doing HEPA filter treatment in the home, we probably would reduce the number of clinical events in a cost-effective way.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved mepolizumab (Nucala, 40 mg subcutaneous) for patients aged 6-11 years with severe eosinophilic asthma, according to a release from GlaxoSmithKline, which developed the drug. This is the first targeted biologic approved for this condition in this age group.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is supported by both an open-label study in children aged 6-11 years and evidence from other trials conducted in adults and adolescents. The 52-week, long-term study in these younger patients investigated pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety, the last of which was shown to be similar to that seen in older patients.

Hypersensitivity reactions, such as anaphylaxis, rash, and bronchospasm, have been associated with mepolizumab. It should not be used to treat acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus, nor should systemic or inhaled corticosteroids be stopped abruptly after initiating mepolizumab treatment. Common adverse events include headache, injection-site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. Injection site reactions (such as pain, erythema, and itching) occurred in 8% of mepolizumab patients treated with 100 mg of the drug versus 3% of placebo patients.

The monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-5 was first approved for severe eosinophilic asthma in 2015 for ages 12 years and older and in ages 6 years and older in the European Union in August 2018. It inhibits IL-5 from binding to eosinophils, which reduces the presence of eosinophils in blood without completely eliminating them.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved mepolizumab (Nucala, 40 mg subcutaneous) for patients aged 6-11 years with severe eosinophilic asthma, according to a release from GlaxoSmithKline, which developed the drug. This is the first targeted biologic approved for this condition in this age group.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is supported by both an open-label study in children aged 6-11 years and evidence from other trials conducted in adults and adolescents. The 52-week, long-term study in these younger patients investigated pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety, the last of which was shown to be similar to that seen in older patients.

Hypersensitivity reactions, such as anaphylaxis, rash, and bronchospasm, have been associated with mepolizumab. It should not be used to treat acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus, nor should systemic or inhaled corticosteroids be stopped abruptly after initiating mepolizumab treatment. Common adverse events include headache, injection-site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. Injection site reactions (such as pain, erythema, and itching) occurred in 8% of mepolizumab patients treated with 100 mg of the drug versus 3% of placebo patients.

The monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-5 was first approved for severe eosinophilic asthma in 2015 for ages 12 years and older and in ages 6 years and older in the European Union in August 2018. It inhibits IL-5 from binding to eosinophils, which reduces the presence of eosinophils in blood without completely eliminating them.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved mepolizumab (Nucala, 40 mg subcutaneous) for patients aged 6-11 years with severe eosinophilic asthma, according to a release from GlaxoSmithKline, which developed the drug. This is the first targeted biologic approved for this condition in this age group.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is supported by both an open-label study in children aged 6-11 years and evidence from other trials conducted in adults and adolescents. The 52-week, long-term study in these younger patients investigated pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety, the last of which was shown to be similar to that seen in older patients.

Hypersensitivity reactions, such as anaphylaxis, rash, and bronchospasm, have been associated with mepolizumab. It should not be used to treat acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus, nor should systemic or inhaled corticosteroids be stopped abruptly after initiating mepolizumab treatment. Common adverse events include headache, injection-site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. Injection site reactions (such as pain, erythema, and itching) occurred in 8% of mepolizumab patients treated with 100 mg of the drug versus 3% of placebo patients.

The monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-5 was first approved for severe eosinophilic asthma in 2015 for ages 12 years and older and in ages 6 years and older in the European Union in August 2018. It inhibits IL-5 from binding to eosinophils, which reduces the presence of eosinophils in blood without completely eliminating them.

[email protected]