↓ Skip to main content

A randomised pragmatic trial of corticosteroid optimization in severe asthma using a composite biomarker algorithm to adjust corticosteroid dose versus standard care: study protocol for a randomised…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomised pragmatic trial of corticosteroid optimization in severe asthma using a composite biomarker algorithm to adjust corticosteroid dose versus standard care: study protocol for a randomised trial
Published in
Trials, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2384-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine E. Hanratty, John G. Matthews, Joseph R. Arron, David F. Choy, Ian D. Pavord, P. Bradding, Christopher E. Brightling, Rekha Chaudhuri, Douglas C. Cowan, Ratko Djukanovic, Nicola Gallagher, Stephen J. Fowler, Tim C. Hardman, Tim Harrison, Cécile T. Holweg, Peter H. Howarth, James Lordan, Adel H. Mansur, Andrew Menzies-Gow, Sofia Mosesova, Robert M. Niven, Douglas S. Robinson, Dominick E. Shaw, Samantha Walker, Ashley Woodcock, Liam G. Heaney, on behalf of the RASP-UK (Refractory Asthma Stratification Programme) Consortium

Abstract

Patients with difficult-to-control asthma consume 50-60% of healthcare costs attributed to asthma and cost approximately five-times more than patients with mild stable disease. Recent evidence demonstrates that not all patients with asthma have a typical type 2 (T2)-driven eosinophilic inflammation. These asthmatics have been called 'T2-low asthma' and have a minimal response to corticosteroid therapy. Adjustment of corticosteroid treatment using sputum eosinophil counts from induced sputum has demonstrated reduced severe exacerbation rates and optimized corticosteroid dose. However, it has been challenging to move induced sputum into the clinical setting. There is therefore a need to examine novel algorithms to target appropriate levels of corticosteroid treatment in difficult asthma, particularly in T2-low asthmatics. This study examines whether a composite non-invasive biomarker algorithm predicts exacerbation risk in patients with asthma on high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (± long-acting beta agonist) treatment, and evaluates the utility of this composite score to facilitate personalized biomarker-specific titration of corticosteroid therapy. Patients recruited to this pragmatic, multi-centre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial are randomly allocated into either a biomarker controlled treatment advisory algorithm or usual care group in a ratio of 4:1. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with any reduction in ICS or oral corticosteroid dose from baseline to week 48. Secondary outcomes include the rate of protocol-defined severe exacerbations per patient per year, time to first severe exacerbation from randomisation, dose of inhaled steroid at the end of the study, cumulative dose of inhaled corticosteroid during the study, proportion of patients on oral corticosteroids at the end of the study, proportion of patients who decline to progress to oral corticosteroids despite composite biomarker score of 2, frequency of hospital admission for asthma, change in the 7-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), exhaled nitric oxide, blood eosinophil count, and periostin levels from baseline to week 48. Blood will also be taken for whole blood gene expression; serum, plasma, and urine will be stored for validation of additional biomarkers. Multi-centre trials present numerous logistical issues that have been addressed to ensure minimal bias and robustness of study conduct. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02717689 . Registered on 16 March 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Other 9 10%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 34 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 35 37%