Search

Background Asthma prevalence is 339 million globally. ‘Severe asthma’ (SA) comprises subjects with uncontrolled asthma despite proper management. Objectives To compare asthma from diverse ethnicities and environments. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of two adult cohorts, a Brazilian (ProAR) and a European (U-BIOPRED). U-BIOPRED comprised of 311 non-smoking with Severe Asthma (SAn), 110 smokers or ex-smokers with SA (SAs) and 88 mild to moderate asthmatics (MMA) while ProAR included 544 SA and 452 MMA. Although these projects were independent, there were similarities in objectives and methodology, with ProAR adopting operating procedures of U-BIOPRED. Results Among SA subjects, age, weight, proportion of former smokers and FEV1 pre-bronchodilator were similar. The proportion of SA with a positive skin prick tests (SPT) to aeroallergens, the scores of sino-nasal symptoms and quality of life were comparable. In addition, blood eosinophil counts (EOS) and the % of subjects with EOS > 300 cells/μl were not different. The Europeans with SA however, were more severe with a greater proportion of continuous oral corticosteroids (OCS), worse symptoms and more frequent exacerbations. FEV1/FVC pre- and post-bronchodilator were lower among the Europeans. The MMA cohorts were less comparable in control and treatment, but similar in the proportion of allergic rhinitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and EOS >3%. Conclusions ProAR and U-BIOPRED cohorts, with varying severity, ethnicity and environment have similarities, which provide the basis for global external validation of asthma phenotypes. This should stimulate collaboration between asthma consortia with the aim of understanding SA, which will lead to better management.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Several prediction models assessing future risk of exacerbations in adult patients with asthma have been published. Applicability of these models is uncertain because their predictive performance has often not been assessed beyond the population in which they were derived. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and critically appraise prediction models for asthma exacerbations and validate them in 2 clinically distinct populations. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched to April 2017 for reports describing adult asthma populations in which multivariable models were constructed to predict exacerbations during any time frame. After critical appraisal, the models' predictive performances were assessed in a primary and a secondary care population for author-defined exacerbations and for American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society-defined severe exacerbations. RESULTS: We found 12 reports from which 24 prediction models were evaluated. Three predictors (previous health care utilization, symptoms, and spirometry values) were retained in most models. Assessment was hampered by suboptimal methodology and reporting, and by differences in exacerbation outcomes. Discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [c-statistic]) of models for author-defined exacerbations was better in the primary care population (mean, 0.71) than in the secondary care population (mean, 0.60) and similar (0.65 and 0.62, respectively) for American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society-defined severe exacerbations. Model calibration was generally poor, but consistent between the 2 populations. CONCLUSIONS: The preservation of 3 predictors in models derived from variable populations and the fairly consistent predictive properties of most models in 2 distinct validation populations suggest the feasibility of a generalizable model predicting severe exacerbations. Nevertheless, improvement of the models is warranted because predictive performances are below the desired level.