RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between chitinase activity, airway fungi and clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis and bronchiectasis-COPD overlap?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective cohort of 463 individuals were recruited across five hospital sites in three countries (Singapore, Malaysia, and Scotland) including individuals who were not diseased (n = 35) and who had severe asthma (n = 54), COPD (n = 90), bronchiectasis (n = 241) and BCO (n = 43). Systemic chitinase levels were assessed for bronchiectasis and BCO and related to clinical outcomes, airway Aspergillus status, and underlying pulmonary mycobiome profiles.
RESULTS: Systemic chitinase activity is elevated significantly in bronchiectasis and BCO and exceed the activity in other airway diseases. CHIT1 activity strongly predicts bronchiectasis exacerbations and is associated with the presence of at least one Aspergillus species in the airway and frequent exacerbations (≥3 exacerbations/y). Subgroup analysis reveals an association between CHIT1 activity and the "frequent exacerbator" phenotype in South-East Asian patients whose airway mycobiome profiles indicate the presence of novel fungal taxa that include Macroventuria, Curvularia and Sarocladium. These taxa, enriched in frequently exacerbating South-East Asian patients with high CHIT1 may have potential roles in bronchiectasis exacerbations.
INTERPRETATION: Systemic CHIT1 activity may represent a useful clinical tool for the identification of fungal-driven "frequent exacerbators" with bronchiectasis in South-East Asian populations.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the demographic features, clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of adults with an ED diagnosis of asthma who presented to an ED in the Asia Pacific region with a principal symptom of dyspnea.
METHODS: Planned sub-study of patients with an ED diagnosis of asthma identified in the Asia, Australia and New Zealand Dyspnoea in Emergency Departments (AANZDEM) study. AANZDEM was a prospective cohort study conducted in 46 EDs in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia over three 72 hour periods in May, August and October 2014. Primary outcomes were patient epidemiology, clinical features, treatment and outcomes (hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality).
RESULTS: Of the 3044 patients with dyspnea, 387 (12.7%) patients had an ED diagnosis of asthma. The median age was 45 years, 60.1% were female, 16.1% were active or recent smokers and 30.4% arrived by ambulance. Inhaled bronchodilator therapy was initiated in 88.1% of patients, and 66.9% received both inhaled bronchodilators and systemic corticosteroids. After treatment in the ED, 65.4% were discharged. No death was reported.
CONCLUSION: Asthma is common among patients presenting with a principal symptom of dyspnea in the ED of the Asia Pacific region. There was a suboptimal adherence to international guidelines on investigations and treatments of acute asthma exacerbations presenting an opportunity to improve the efficiency of care.
DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.
STUDY SELECTION: All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.