RESUMEN

Translating evidence-based practice (EBP) into real-world clinical settings often takes a considerable amount of time and resources. In allergy and immunology, the dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences facilitate the study of how variations in knowledge, resources, patient populations, and staffing models lead to differences in the clinical care of asthma, allergic disease, and primary immunodeficiency. Despite the need for validated approaches to study how to best apply EBP in the real world, the D&I sciences are underutilized. To address this gap, an American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) work group was convened to provide an overview for the role of the D&I sciences in clinical care and future research within the field. For the D&I sciences to be leveraged effectively, teams should be multidisciplinary and inclusive of community and clinical partners, and multimethods approaches to data collection and analyses should be used. Used appropriately, the D&I sciences provide important tools to promote EBP and health equity as well as optimization of clinical practice in allergy and immunology.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a leading cause of children's hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and missed school days. Our school-based asthma intervention has reduced asthma exacerbations for children experiencing health disparities in the Denver Metropolitan Area, due partly to addressing care coordination for asthma and social determinants of health (SDOH), such as access to healthcare and medications. Limited dissemination of school-based asthma programs has occurred in other metropolitan and rural areas of Colorado. We formed and engaged community advisory boards in socioeconomically diverse regions of Colorado to develop two implementation strategy packages for delivering our school-based asthma intervention - now termed "Better Asthma Control for Kids (BACK)" - with tailoring to regional priorities, needs and resources. METHODS: In this proposed type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial, where the primary goal is equitable reach to families to reduce asthma disparities, we will compare two different packages of implementation strategies to deliver BACK across four Colorado regions. The two implementation packages to be compared are: 1) standard set of implementation strategies including Tailor and Adapt to context, Facilitation and Training termed, BACK-Standard (BACK-S); 2) BACK-S plus an enhanced implementation strategy, that incorporates network weaving with community partners and consumer engagement with school families, termed BACK-Enhanced (BACK-E). Our evaluation will be guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, including its Pragmatic Robust Implementation Sustainability Model (PRISM) determinants of implementation outcomes. Our central hypothesis is that our BACK-E implementation strategy will have significantly greater reach to eligible children/families than BACK-S (primary outcome) and that both BACK-E and BACK-S groups will have significantly reduced asthma exacerbation rates ("attacks") and improved asthma control as compared to usual care. DISCUSSION: We expect both the BACK-S and BACK-E strategy packages will accelerate dissemination of our BACK program across the state - the comparative impact of BACK-S vs. BACK-E on reach and other RE-AIM outcomes may inform strategy selection for scaling BACK and other effective school-based programs to address chronic illness disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06003569, registered on August 22, 2023, https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT06003569 .

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Increased understanding of the underlying pathophysiology has highlighted the heterogeneity of asthma and identified that most children with asthma have type 2 inflammation with elevated biomarkers, such as blood eosinophils and/or fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Although in the past most of these children may have been categorized as having allergic asthma, identifying the type 2 inflammatory phenotype provides a mechanism to explain both allergic and non-allergic triggers in pediatric patients with asthma. Most children achieve control with low to medium doses of inhaled corticosteroids. However, in a small but significant proportion of children, asthma remains uncontrolled despite maximum conventional treatment, with an increased risk of severe exacerbations. In this review, we focus on the role of type 2 inflammation and allergic processes in children with asthma, together with evidence of the efficacy of available treatment options for those who experience severe symptoms.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: LAVOLTA (L)I, LII, and ACOUSTICS were randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trials of lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-13 in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Failure to demonstrate efficacy may have been related to patient selection in those trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy in a well-defined subpopulation of patients with elevated blood eosinophil counts and a minimum number of prior asthma exacerbations. We performed an additional analysis in a subpopulation of patients with elevated FeNO and prior exacerbations. METHODS: Adult (LI and LII) and adolescent patients (aged 12-17 years weighing ≥40 kg, ACOUSTICS) with uncontrolled asthma received lebrikizumab (125 mg, n = 832; or 37.5 mg, n = 829) or placebo (n = 833) subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Post hoc analysis of the annualized adjusted exacerbation rate (AER) was performed in a subpopulation of patients with baseline blood eosinophils of 300 cells/µL or greater and history of one or more exacerbations. In this subpopulation, there were 227 patients in the placebo group, 222 in the lebrikizumab 37.5-mg group, and 217 in the lebrikizumab 125-mg group. We summarized safety in patients who received at least one dose of lebrikizumab using adverse events. RESULTS: Lebrikizumab significantly reduced AER compared with placebo in adults (AER reduction: 125 mg [38%]; and 37.5 mg [41%]) and adolescents (AER reduction:125 mg [59%]; 37.5 mg [64%]) with baseline blood eosinophils of 300 cells/µL or greater and one or more exacerbations. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Lebrikizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations in a subpopulation of patients with elevated blood eosinophils, elevated FeNO, and a history of asthma exacerbation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This review will highlight portions of Dr. William Jusko's and colleagues' work that affected the clinical use and study of corticosteroids in acute and chronic disease management. Selected publications related to corticosteroid pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics from the 1970s through today were included in this review, with a focus on the foundational human-based studies conducted in the 1970s-1990s. Dr. Jusko contributed significantly to early corticosteroid pharmacology across several domains including: 1) foundational corticosteroid pharmacokinetic methods and parameter development, 2) disease state-variation in corticosteroid pharmacokinetics, 3) drug interaction effects on corticosteroid pharmacokinetics, and 4) early corticosteroid pharmacodynamic studies. In an era where little was known about the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of corticosteroids, Dr. Jusko's work opened the eyes of researchers and clinicians to the potential for disease and drug interactions that could reduce or enhance the effects of corticosteroids. This significant body of work paved the way for alternative routes of administration that would be useful in concentrating the activity at the site of action and markedly reduced systemic drug exposure, minimizing the risk of adverse effects through application of the dose-sparing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The goal of asthma guideline therapy is to achieve disease control, by minimizing impairment and decreasing the risk of exacerbations and adverse effects of the disease and its treatment. The primary objective of most clinical trials of biologics for severe asthma is a reduction in exacerbation rate. Recently, studies with patients at the lower guideline steps have also selected exacerbation reduction as a primary objective. These trials in patients with milder disease frequently demonstrate statistically significantly fewer exacerbations, but their power calculations reflect larger sample size and smaller effect size. Exacerbations have a precise consensus definition, although a minimal clinically important difference has not been established. Reduction of exacerbations in severe asthma is commonly 10-fold greater than in mild disease. Further, reduction in exacerbations is not always associated with reduced impairment. If superior control is the objective, both domains should demonstrate consistent and parallel improvement. The disconnect may reflect the need for alternative tools for measurement of impairment or, possibly, different therapeutic mechanisms of action. Determining response to biologics or discussion of disease remission requires assessing symptoms that may occur daily rather than focusing on exacerbations that occur once or twice a year for patients at the highest steps of care according to the guidelines.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence in adolescents remains a significant management challenge and innovative strategies are needed to improve medication adherence. Financial incentives have been used to improve outcomes for health behaviors among adults, but have not been well-studied among adolescents. The objective of this study was to test if a modest financial incentive improved medication adherence in adolescents with asthma compared with a control group. METHODS: Participants were randomized to either control (electronic medication monitoring [EMM] with App reminders/feedback for 4 months) or intervention (EMM + $1 per day for perfect medication adherence for 3 months [maximum $84] followed by 1 month of EMM only). A repeated measures mixed model, with a first order autoregressive correlation structure between errors, was used to test the null hypothesis for an interaction of treatment group and week. RESULTS: Fifty-two participants were enrolled, and 48 completed primary analysis. Mean adherence rates declined in both groups over time, and there was no significant difference in the change in adherence rates between the groups (F-statistic = 0.72, ndf = 15, ddf = 625, p = 0.76). Adherence rates (during the 12 weeks when incentives were given) declined from 80% to 64% in the control group, and from 90% to 58% in the incentive group. There was no significant change in the slope of decline in the incentives group in the month following payment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: A modest financial incentive did not lead to significantly different medication adherence rates in adolescents with asthma who were receiving a monitoring and reminder intervention. Further study is needed to determine viable interventions to optimize medication use in this group.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed once- or twice-daily dosing of controller inhalers. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in controller adherence by dosing schedule and age. METHODS: Electronic medication monitors (EMMs) captured the date and time of inhaler actuations over 90 days in patients using the Propeller Health platform. Prescribed inhaler schedule was self-reported. Once- versus twice-daily schedule comparisons were assessed retrospectively using regressions adjusting for age. RESULTS: A total of 6294 patients with asthma and 1791 patients with COPD were included. On average, once-daily users had significantly higher median (interquartile range [IQR]) daily adherence than twice-daily users (asthma: 63.3 [IQR: 31.1, 86.7]% vs 50.3 [IQR: 21.1, 78.3]%, P < .001; COPD: 83.3 [IQR: 57.2, 95.6]% vs 64.7 [IQR: 32.8, 88.9]%, P < .001). This pattern persisted in all age groups, with the exception of 4- to 17-year-olds in asthma. The lowest adherence was in the young adult population (18- to 29-year-olds). The percentage of patients who achieved ≥80% adherence was significantly higher among once- versus twice-daily users in asthma (34.3% vs 23.6%, P < .001) and COPD (54.8% vs 38.6%, P < .001). The adjusted odds of once- versus twice-daily users achieving ≥80% adherence was 1.36 (95% confidence interval: 1.19-1.56, P < .001) in asthma and 1.73 (95% confidence interval: 1.38-2.17, P < .001) in COPD. Most once-daily patients with COPD took their medication in the morning versus at night; there was no difference in morning versus afternoon/evening administration in all other asthma and COPD groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with asthma and COPD who were prescribed once-daily versus twice-daily medications were more likely to adhere to their inhalers. Patients with COPD had higher adherence than those with asthma, possibly reflecting, in part, the older cohort age. The effect of greater adherence on exacerbations is a topic for future analysis.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cytokines, such as interleukins (IL)-4/5/13, play a key role in multiple type 2 inflammatory diseases, including allergic asthma. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for IL-4/IL-13, inhibiting signaling. In this post hoc analysis of VOYAGE (NCT02948959), dupilumab efficacy was evaluated in patients aged 6-11 years with type 2 asthma with or without evidence of allergic asthma (baseline serum total IgE ≥30 IU/mL and ≥1 perennial aeroallergen-specific IgE ≥0.35kU/L). METHODS: Annualized severe exacerbation rates (AER) and changes in pre-bronchodilator (Pre-BD) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1 ), percent-predicted pre-BD FEV1 (ppFEV1 ), and Asthma Control Score (ACQ)-7 were assessed during the treatment period. RESULTS: 350 children (261 with and 89 without evidence of allergic asthma) were included. Dupilumab versus placebo significantly reduced AER in patients with (0.24 vs. 0.62, relative risk reduction [RRR]: 62% [95% CI, 39-76], P < .0001) and without (0.39 vs. 0.80, RRR: 51% [95% CI, 0-76], P < .05) evidence of allergic asthma. Significant improvements in ppFEV1 , pre-bronchodilator FEV1 , and ACQ-7 scores were observed in dupilumab versus placebo throughout the treatment period in patients with evidence of allergic asthma. In patients without evidence of allergic asthma, numerical improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and asthma control were observed by Week 52. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab versus placebo reduced asthma exacerbations in children with type 2 asthma irrespective of evidence of allergic asthma; similar trends were observed in changes in lung function. Significant improvement in asthma control was observed in patients with evidence of allergic asthma, but not in those without.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The increasing availability of biologics, both by expanding age indications and by development of new therapies, provides additional options to treat children and adolescents with severe asthma. However, the evidence for these biologics in these populations is limited compared with that for adult studies. As such, before initiation of therapy, possible alternative therapies that can also provide asthma control, confirmation of the diagnosis of asthma, management of comorbidities, and assessment of adherence should be explored. The choice of a biologic should be a shared decision-making process between providers and families, balancing biologic efficacy, goals of care, administration, and ability to treat multiple conditions. Response to treatment should be periodically evaluated not only to ensure an ineffective treatment is not continued but also to consider when to potentially discontinue therapy should it be beneficial. The utilization of biologics in children and adolescents with severe asthma also leads to unanswered questions on their role in disease remission and long-term outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone Asthma clinical trials network is actively assessing novel treatments for severe asthma during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and has needed to adapt to various clinical dilemmas posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Pharmacologic interactions between established asthma therapies and novel drug interventions for COVID-19 infection, including antivirals, biologics, and vaccines, have emerged as a critical and unanticipated issue in the clinical care of asthma. In particular, impaired metabolism of some long-acting beta-2 agonists by the cytochrome P4503A4 enzyme in the setting of antiviral treatment using ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (NVM/r, brand name Paxlovid) may increase risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Although available data have documented the potential for such interactions, these issues are largely unappreciated by clinicians who treat asthma, or those dispensing COVID-19 interventions in patients who happen to have asthma. Because these drug-drug interactions have not previously been relevant to patient care, clinicians have had no guidance on management strategies to reduce potentially serious interactions between treatments for asthma and COVID-19. The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone Asthma network considered the available literature and product information, and herein share our considerations and plans for treating asthma within the context of these novel COVID-19-related therapies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: School-based asthma programs effectively address poorly controlled asthma and asthma disparities, especially when coupled with screening for and addressing social determinants of health (SDOH) needs. Existing screening tools are tailored to clinical settings; therefore, we sought to develop a community-based SDOH screening tool. Design/Methods: We used a four-phase iterative design process to develop and pilot a community-based screening tool. We used a modified Delphi process to identify screening tool domains, identified validated items for inclusion, and developed an appropriate tool layout for populations with limited health/general literacy. Community advisory boards reviewed and refined a draft tool. Next, we conducted a qualitative pilot test of acceptability to parents and feasibility for staff in a community health center. Results: Six domains are included in our SDOH screening tool: health care access, transportation, food insecurity, public benefits, housing, and utilities. In the pilot test, 41 screenings were completed, and 36 parents (16.7% Spanish speaking) provided feedback. Most families understood the purpose of the screening; felt that the questions were clear, appropriate, and quick to complete; and liked the pictures. The clinic's care coordinator expressed a preference for the pilot tool compared to their existing screening tool and recommended improvements to encourage honest reporting by patients. Conclusion: This community-based screening tool addresses key SDOH needs that impact asthma and is acceptable to families. The next steps are to implement the tool in school-based asthma programs to support improvements in asthma outcomes and disparities by identifying and addressing families' unmet SDOH needs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objectives: Asthma is one of the most prevalent chronic conditions affecting approximately 8.5% of children in Colorado. Our school-based asthma program (SBAP) has effectively improved asthma control and reduced asthma disparities among children but has been largely limited to the Denver area. We interviewed community stakeholders in 5 regions of Colorado to understand community needs for broader dissemination of SBAPs. Methods: In-depth, semistructured key informant interviews were conducted with school nurses, parents, pediatric healthcare providers, public health professionals, and community resource organization representatives. Inductive and deductive analyses were informed by the practical, robust, implementation, and sustainability model, an implementation science framework. Results: Participants (n=52) identified 6 types of needs for successful future implementation of our SBAP: (1) buy-in from stakeholders; (2) asthma prioritization; (3) improved relationships, communication, and coordination among school nurses, healthcare providers, and community organizations that address social determinants of health (SDOH) and children/families; (4) resources to address healthcare and SDOH needs and awareness of existing resources; (5) asthma education for children/families, school staff, and community members; and (6) improved coordination for School Asthma Care Plan completion. These needs mapped to a 3-tiered, progressive structure of foundational, relational, and functional needs for implementation success. Conclusion: These 6 types of needs illuminate factors that will allow this SBAP to work well and program delivery approaches and implementation strategies that may need modification to be successful. Next steps should include tailoring implementation strategies to variations in local context to support fit, effectiveness, and sustainment.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that modulates activity of interleukin-13. The Phase 3 ACOUSTICS study assessed lebrikizumab efficacy and safety in adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite standard-of-care treatment. Methods: Adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with uncontrolled asthma, prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s 40%-90% predicted, and stable background therapy were randomised 1:1:1 to receive lebrikizumab 125 or 37.5 mg or placebo subcutaneously once every 4 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint was asthma exacerbation rate over 52 weeks. Results: Between August 2013 and July 2016, 579 patients were screened and 346 were randomised; 224 (65%) completed the study with 52 weeks of treatment. Lebrikizumab 125 mg (n = 116) reduced the exacerbation rate at 52 weeks versus placebo (n = 117; adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.49 [95% CI 0.28-0.83]; 51% rate reduction). Lebrikizumab 37.5 mg (n = 113) was less effective at reducing exacerbations (RR 0.60 [95% CI 0.35-1.03]; 40% rate reduction). In patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µl, both lebrikizumab doses reduced exacerbations (125 mg: RR 0.44 [95% CI 0.21-0.89]; 37.5 mg: 0.42 [95% CI 0.19-0.93]). Treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in 155 (68%), 7 (3%), and 5 (2%) of 229 patients who received lebrikizumab (both 125 and 37.5 mg doses) and in 72 (62%), 4 (3%), and 1 (1%) of 117 who received placebo, respectively. No deaths occurred. Conclusion: Lebrikizumab 125 mg reduced asthma exacerbation rates in adolescents with uncontrolled asthma. However, the study was prematurely terminated (sponsor's decision) potentially limiting interpretation of results. Clinical trial registration: NCT01875003 (www.ClinicalTrials.gov).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Our school-based asthma program has reduced asthma exacerbations for youth with health disparities in the Denver metropolitan area, due partly to addressing social determinants of health, such as access to health care and medications. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science approaches accelerate the translation of evidence-based programs into routine practice. D&I methods are being applied more commonly to improve health equity. The purpose of this publication was to give an overview of D&I research methods, using our school-based asthma program as an example. To successfully scale out our program across the state of Colorado, we are applying a D&I framework that guides the adaptation of our existing implementation approach to better meet our stakeholders' local context-the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework. In a pragmatic trial design, we will evaluate the outcomes of implementing the program across 5 Colorado regions, with attention to health equity, using a second commonly used D&I framework-Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. Our central hypothesis is that our program will have broad and equitable reach to eligible students (primary outcome) and will reduce asthma attacks and symptoms. This D&I approach accelerates dissemination of our program and is an applicable process for translating other effective allergy/asthma programs to address asthma and allergy-related disparities.

Asunto(s)