Search

To investigate the knowledge and perceptions of physicians on the role of modeling studies in asthma, using a modified Delphi procedure. Group opinions among a panel of respiratory experts were obtained using two online questionnaires and a virtual scientific workshop. A consensus was pre-defined as agreement by >75% of participants. From 26 experts who agreed to participate, 22 completed both surveys. At the end of the process, the panel rated their own understanding of modeling as good (77%) but that among physicians in general as poor (77%). Participants agreed that data from modeling studies should be used, at least sometimes, to inform treatment guidelines (91%) and could be useful for guiding clinical decisions (100%). Perceived barriers to using modeling studies were ‘A lack of understanding’ (81%) and ‘A lack of standardized methodology’ (82%). Based on data from two modeling studies, no consensus was reached on physicians recommending regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus as-needed therapy for patients with mild asthma, whereas 77% agreed that they would recommend regular ICS over maintenance and reliever therapy for ≥80% of their patients with moderate asthma. No consensus was reached on the value of modeling data in relation to empirical data. There is overall support among respiratory experts for the usefulness of modeling data to guide asthma treatment guidelines and clinical decision making. More publications on modeling data using robust models and accessible terminology will aid the understanding of physicians in general and help clarify the evidence-based value of modeling studies.

This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared fixed-dose, twice daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Sal) vs. inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and other ICS/long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) treatments, including when administered using maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) regimens, in terms of improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The relationship between changes in asthma control and HRQoL was assessed.Articles published between 2001 and 2021, reporting change from baseline (CFB) in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, were identified by a systematic review. Random effects Bayesian NMAs derived estimates of the mean difference in CFB in AQLQ vs. other interventions connected to the network (included 15 studies). Sensitivity analyses explored the impacts of differences in follow-up duration, baseline asthma control, the inclusion of observational studies, adjusting for baseline FEVMean CFB in AQLQ with FP/Sal vs. comparators demonstrated expected ranked effects: mean difference 0.65 [95% credible interval: 0.54, 0.78] versus placebo, 0.58 [ 0.33, 0.84] versus LABA, 0.21 [ 0.13, 0.31] versus ICS alone, 0.06 [-0.04, 0.19] versus other ICS/LABA, and 0.00 [-0.13, 0.14] versus ICS/formoterol MART. Sensitivity analyses largely showed consistent results. Improvements in AQLQ and ACQ were strongly correlated (R = 0.94).This NMA demonstrates that HRQoL is responsive to treatment, is strongly related to asthma control and that it can be well-managed in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma using regular treatment with inhaled FP/Sal.

Background Lamotrigine is approved as a maintenance therapy for bipolar I disorder in many countries, including China in 2021. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in controlling relapse and/or recurrence of mood episodes in Chinese patients with bipolar I disorder. Methods Patients aged ≥ 18 years with bipolar I disorder who met response criteria (Clinical Global Impression–Severity [CGI-S] score of ≤ 3 for ≥ 4 consecutive weeks) during treatment with lamotrigine in a 6–16 week open-label (OL) phase, and who were maintained for ≥ 1 week on lamotrigine 200 mg/day monotherapy, were randomised (1:1) to continue receiving lamotrigine 200 mg/day or switch to placebo in a 36-week randomised double-blind (RD) phase. The primary efficacy outcome measure was time from entry into the RD phase to intervention for relapse and/or recurrence of a mood episode (TIME). Post hoc analyses assessed the impact of OL baseline mood severity on TIME. Safety assessments were conducted throughout the study. Results Of 420 patients treated in the OL phase, 264 were randomised to receive lamotrigine (n = 131) or placebo (n = 133). Overall, 112 patients had an intervention for relapse and/or recurrence of a mood episode (lamotrigine, n = 50/130 [38.5%]; placebo, n = 62/133 [46.6%]), with no significant difference in TIME between groups (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.93 [0.64, 1.35]; p = 0.701). Post hoc analyses indicated a significant difference in TIME, favouring lamotrigine over placebo, for patients with baseline CGI-S score ≥ 4 (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.52 [0.30, 0.89]; p = 0.018) and with baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ≥ 18 or Young Mania Rating Scale ≥ 10 (0.44 [hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.25, 0.78]; p = 0.005). Lamotrigine was well tolerated with no new safety signals. Conclusions Lamotrigine was not significantly superior to placebo in preventing relapse and/or recurrence of mood episodes in this study of Chinese patients with bipolar I disorder but post hoc analyses suggested a therapeutic benefit in patients with moderate/severe mood symptoms at baseline. The discrepancy between these findings and the positive findings of the pivotal studies may be attributable to the symptom severity of the bipolar patients recruited, a high dropout rate, and the comparatively short duration of the RD phase rather than race/ethnicity differences. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01602510; 21st May 2012; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01602510.

Asthma and allergic rhinitis together are part of the concept of one airway, one disease or united airway disease. The management of allergic airway diseases should address this united concept and manage the issue by educating the patients and their parents and health care providers, along with environmental control measures, pharmacotherapy and immunotherapy. Here, we present recommendations from the module of Airway Diseases Education and Expertise (ADEX) that focused on allergic rhinitis, asthma and sleep disorder breathing as a single entity or Allergic Airway Disease.A working committee was formed by the collaboration of Pediatric Allergy Association of India (PAAI) and Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) Allergy and Applied Immunology chapter to develop a training module on united airway disease.To increase awareness, understanding and acceptance of the concept of United Airway disease and to educate the primary health care providers for children and public health officials, in the management of united airway diseases.Recommendations for diagnosis, management and follow-up of Allergic airway disease are presented in this document. A better compliance by linking education of child, parent, grandparents and other health care providers, and scientific progress by collaboration between practitioners, academicians, researchers and pharmaceutical companies is suggested.