Differing perceptions of asthma control and treatment effectiveness by patients with severe asthma and treating subspecialists in the United States. (2nd September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Panettieri, Reynold A.; Chipps, Bradley E.; Moore, Wendy C.; Soong, Weily; Carr, Warner W.; Kreindler, James L.; O'Quinn, Sean; Trudo, Frank; Ambrose, Christopher S.
• Is Part Of: Journal of asthma. Volume 59:Number 9(2022)
• Page Start: 1859
• Page End: 1868
• Publication Date: 2022-09-02
• Subjects: Real-world study -- subspecialist -- Asthma Control Test™ -- Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness -- overestimation; Asthma -- Periodicals; 616.238005
• DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2021.1963766
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0277-0903

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: For patients with severe asthma (SA), overestimation of asthma control may lead to poorer outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess concurrent patient and specialist assessments of asthma control and treatment effectiveness among a large US cohort of SA patients. Methods: CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Asthma control was assessed using the patient-completed Asthma Control Test™ (ACT™) and specialist clinical assessment of control. Treatment effectiveness was measured using the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) completed by patients and specialists. Results: 1109 patients who completed online surveys at enrollment were included. 14%, 28%, 25%, and 33% of patients had ACT™ scores of 5–9, 10–15, 16–19, and 20–25, respectively. Compared with 67% of patients with uncontrolled asthma by ACT™, 44% were uncontrolled by specialist assessment. 54% of patients who were uncontrolled according to the ACT™ were rated as controlled by specialists, demonstrating overestimation of asthma control. Based on ACT™ score, asthma control was more frequent among patients treated with biologics compared to other treatments. Using the GETE, 90% of patients reported treatment effectiveness compared with 71% of specialists. Patient and specialist treatment effectiveness categorizations agreed 73% of the time. Conclusion: Specialists commonly overestimated asthma control relative to ACT™ scores. Patients reported treatment effectiveness more frequently than specialists. These findings emphasize the importance of validated instruments to assess asthma control and reduce potential treatment gaps associated with patient-specialist discordance. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.