BackgroundThe relationship between smoking, household pollution, dual exposure and severity of asthma in adults has not been sufficiently studied. We examined and compared the effects of cigarette smoking, domestic wood burning pollution and dual exposure (tobacco and wood burning) upon asthma severity in adults.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study performed with 452 individuals with mild to moderate asthma and 544 patients with severe asthma (previously untreated). Smoking and exposure to wood smoke were identified and quantified through questionnaires to evaluate current and/or previous exposure; objective determination of cigarette exposure was obtained through the measurement of urinary cotinine. Asthma control was evaluated through Asthma Control Questionnaire; and severity was classified according to the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. Subjects were grouped according to exposure type into 4 groups: smokers, household pollution, dual-exposure and no-exposure. Chi square, Mann–Whitney, and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for comparisons between groups.ResultsOut of 996 included individuals, 78 (7.8%) were exposed to cigarette smoking alone, 358 (35.9%) to household pollution alone, 155 (15.6%) to the two exposures combined and 405 (40.7%) were not exposed. Compared to unexposed individuals, exposure to household pollution resulted in poorer asthma control, higher proportion of severe asthma, and worse indicators of lung function. The double-exposed individuals were worse off in all the evaluated parameters, and they were significantly worse than subjects with single exposure to household air pollution in relation to asthma severity and lung function. These subjects were predominantly females, older, with longer residence time in rural areas, lower income and lower schooling levels. Multivariate analysis showed that exposure to household pollution and double exposure were predictive factors associated with lack of control and increased severity of asthma.ConclusionsExposure to household pollution is associated with poorer control, greater severity, and poorer pulmonary function; double-exposed individuals have a greater risk of severe asthma and decreased lung function than those exposed only to household pollution.

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 FEV 1 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. FEV 1 /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.

No abstract

Objective: This study aims to describe the eligibility for biologic therapies for severe asthma (SA) in a cohort of patients attending the Program for Control of Asthma (ProAR) in Bahia, Brazil. Methods: Data from SA patients (!18 years old) attending the ProAR, that were included in a case-control study conducted from 2013 to 2015, were used to reassess patients according to a modified ERS/ATS 2014 SA criteria. Patients were then classified according to the eligibility for SA biological therapy based on current prescription labels. Results: From 544 patients in the cohort, 531 (97.6%) were included and 172 (32.4%) were identified as SA patients according to the ERS/ATS 2014 modified criteria. Of these 172 patients, 69 (40.1%) were ineligible for any of the biologicals approved for asthma (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab), 60 (34.9%) patients were eligible for one of the biological therapies, and 10 (5.8%) patients were eligible for all biological therapies. Conclusions: More than half of patients with SA were eligible for biologic therapy in our study, but none of them received this form of treatment. Almost half of them were not eligible to any of the approved biologics, however. The variability and overlap in patients' eligibility highlight the importance of evaluating each patient individually for a more personalized treatment approach. While there is a need to increase access for some of those eligible that may really need a biologic treatment, continuous efforts are required to develop alternatives to those who are not eligible.

Objective: To determine the frequency of active smoking among patients with asthma and individuals without asthma by self-report and urinary cotinine measurement. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in the city of Salvador, Brazil, and involving 1,341 individuals: 498 patients with severe asthma, 417 patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, and 426 individuals without asthma. Smoking status was determined by self-report (with the use of standardized questionnaires) and urinary cotinine measurement. The study variables were compared with the chi-square test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: Of the sample as a whole, 55 (4.1%) reported being current smokers. Of those, 5 had severe asthma, 17 had mild-to-moderate asthma, and 33 had no asthma diagnosis. Of the 55 smokers, 32 (58.2%) were daily smokers and 23 (41.8%) were occasional smokers. Urinary cotinine levels were found to be high in self-reported nonsmokers and former smokers, especially among severe asthma patients, a finding that suggests patient nondisclosure of smoking status. Among smokers, a longer smoking history was found in patients with severe asthma when compared with those with mild-to-moderate asthma. In addition, the proportion of former smokers was higher among patients with severe asthma than among those with mild-to-moderate asthma. Conclusions: Former smoking is associated with severe asthma. Current smoking is observed in patients with severe asthma, and patient nondisclosure of smoking status occurs in some cases. Patients with severe asthma should be thoroughly screened for smoking, and findings should be complemented by objective testing.