Skip to main content
Download PDF

The effect of a systematic multi-dimensional assessment in severe uncontrolled asthma: a literature review and protocol for an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized-controlled trial (EXACT@home study)

BMC Pulmonary Medicine volume 25, Article number: 240 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Severe asthma affects 3.6% of the asthma population, in which patients are uncontrolled despite optimal drug therapy and management of treatable traits. These patients are eligible for treatment with biologicals, which provide significant benefits but are costly and need precise indication. However, identifying all individual treatable traits before diagnosing severe asthma is challenging. A systematic multi-dimensional assessment may help identify and address these hidden traits, resulting in tailored treatment and reducing the number of unnecessary biological prescriptions.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to address the knowledge gap on the effectiveness and added value of a systematic assessment and treatment in difficult-to-treat or severe asthma, followed by an outline of a study protocol to implement this in patients diagnosed with severe asthma.

Results

The literature review revealed limited evidence on the effectiveness of systematic assessments in difficult-to-treat or severe asthma, largely due to the use of different study methods and outcome measures. Notably, only one of the selected articles employed a randomized controlled design. To address this gap, the EXpert Asthma Copd Trajectory with digital support (EXACT@home) study was proposed, which aims to improve the assessment and treatment of treatable traits in severe asthma before (re)considering treatment with biologicals. This study uses a prospective, open label, randomized controlled trial design with the primary aim of reducing biological prescriptions. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they have previously been diagnosed with severe uncontrolled asthma with an indication for treatment with biologicals. The intervention arm undergoes a 6-week systematic assessment program targeting treatable traits followed by tailored treatment, while the control arm directly receives treatment with biologicals. Both arms are followed for 12 months with secondary outcomes including asthma control, quality of life and exacerbation frequency.

Discussion

Difficult-to-treat or severe asthma requires tailored treatments based on individual treatable traits, but challenges remain in accurately identifying these traits. Existing literature highlights the beneficial effects of systematic assessments, but conclusive evidence is lacking. The EXACT@home study aims to provide high quality evidence on the effectiveness of such an assessment in the management of severe uncontrolled asthma, addressing a gap in the current literature.

Trial registration

NCT05831566 (Clinicaltrials.gov), registered at 14–04-2023.

Protocol version: version 6, date 27–03-2024.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Asthma is a common multifactorial disease characterized by chronic inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness to direct or indirect stimuli, resulting in intermittent symptoms like cough, wheezing, shortness of breath and/or chest tightness [1].

In the Netherlands, more than 500,000 patients have been diagnosed with asthma. Of these patients 17% have difficult-to-treat asthma that is uncontrolled despite optimal use of inhaled medication and/or maintenance therapy with oral corticosteroids (mOCS). This is often due to the presence of treatable traits, which are factors that contribute to the disease severity [2]. Within the field of difficult-to-treat asthma, severe asthma is a distinct subpopulation, affecting 3.6% of the total asthma population [2]. Severe asthma is defined as asthma that remains uncontrolled despite adherence to optimised high-intensity therapy and optimal treatment of treatable traits [3]. Treatable traits can be categorized into pulmonary factors (e.g. eosinophilia, allergies, airway obstruction and infections), non-pulmonary factors such as comorbidities (e.g. obesity, depression, vocal cord dysfunction, rhinosinusitis, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and gastroesophageal reflux), behavioral aspects (e.g. adherence, inhaler technique, physical activity, dysfunctional breathing, symptom perception, smoking) and environmental influences (e.g. social network, pollution) [4,5,6]. Patients with difficult-to-treat asthma have similar clinical presentation, but possess unique compositions of underlying treatable traits.

Severe asthma is considered an ‘orphan disease’, but it is responsible for a high disease and healthcare burden [7,8,9]. Treatment with biologicals have fundamentally changed the care of patients with severe asthma, resulting in significant improvement in asthma control, lung function and quality of life and decrease of exacerbation frequency and use of mOCS [10,11,12]. Nevertheless, hidden, untreated treatable traits at the start of treatment with biologicals may lead to suboptimal treatment outcomes and a delay in the initiation of appropriate treatment. Addressing these hidden traits through systematic assessment first could be sufficient, potentially eliminating the need for biologicals.

The Centre of Excellence for Severe Asthma, Franciscus Gasthuis and Vlietland (FGV), Rotterdam, the Netherlands, provides such a validated tertiary assessment, known as EXACT (EXpert Asthma Copd Trajectory) [13], designed to systematically assess and manage these traits in patients with difficult-to-treat asthma. This assessment includes a comprehensive systematic assessment of treatable traits [14], which is performed by a respiratory nurse and includes disease-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The assessment also includes a comprehensive spirometry and oscillometry measurement, one week of activity monitoring and a consultation with a physiotherapist. Finally, a meeting is held between the respiratory nurse and the pulmonologist to discuss the patient’s case in detail so that the pulmonologist can decide on a personalized treatment plan.

Given the potential significance of systematically assessing and managing treatable traits in uncontrolled asthma, we conducted a literature review to assess the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of these assessment programs. Next, we developed a study protocol to implement an in-depth assessment building upon the existing EXACT program, optimised with digital home monitoring and a wide range of PROMs, for patients diagnosed with severe asthma. The primary aim of this study is to uncover potentially hidden treatable traits and reduce unnecessary prescription of expensive biologicals.

Methods

Search strategy literature review

A Pubmed search was conducted based on the following research question: ‘Does a multidimensional systematic assessment of treatable traits contribute to optimized and personalised treatment in difficult-to-treat or severe asthma?’ Two authors (LB and JV) independently assessed the identified articles based on the title and abstract to determine their inclusion in this review. Disagreements were resolved by seeking the opinion of a third author (GB). Only original English-language studies were considered for inclusion. Further information about the PubMed search and the selection process can be found in the Suppl.1.

Assessment of evidence

The primary outcome was the effectiveness of a systematic assessment program, as indicated by clinical parameters such as the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), healthcare utilisation (HCU), pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), exacerbation frequency and usage of mOCS. Each study underwent an evaluation based on multiple criteria to assess the evidence supporting the research question. The strength of the study design was assessed using a star rating system: one star for retrospective studies, two stars for prospective observational studies, and three stars for randomised controlled trials.

Results

A PubMed search was conducted using search terms related to the research question (suppl. 1). This yielded a total of 150 articles. Following a selection process based on the title and abstract, eight articles were suitable for further evaluation (Table 1). Only one of these selected articles used a randomized controlled design, while the remaining seven used a prospective observational approach.

Table 1 Overview of trials investigating the effect of a (multidisciplinary) systematic assessment in difficult-to-treat or severe asthma
Full size table

This selection consisted of articles with a wide range of study designs in terms of the method, content and duration of the assessment and follow up. In addition, populations and outcome measures differed (Table 1). However, all articles [15,16,17,18,19,20, 22, 23] share three components: (1) confirmation of the asthma diagnosis, (2) assessment of the inflammatory phenotype, and (3) assessment of contributing factors and/or comorbidities. The studies by Tay et al. [19] and Lin et al. [22] used the same systematic assessment protocol and were conducted in the same hospital, but involved distinct study populations.

The study by McDonald et al. [21] was the only randomized controlled trial, comparing standard care with a systematic assessment. This study concluded that individualized treatment based on treatable traits was feasible and resulted in improvements in asthma quality of life (AQLQ) and asthma control (ACQ). Of all selected articles, six demonstrated significant improvements in asthma control (ACQ or ACT) and/or asthma quality of life (AQLQ) [17,18,19,20,21,22]. Conversely, Heaney et al. [16] reported that targeted treatment of identified comorbidities had minimal impact on quality of life in individuals with therapy-resistant asthma (TRA), a condition equivalent to severe uncontrolled asthma. In addition, three articles documented a reduction in mOCS burden [17, 20, 22], with Denton et al. [20] demonstrating a reduction in mOCS burden comparable to that achieved with biological therapy. Moreover, five articles demonstrated reduced exacerbation rates [17,18,19,20, 22], two of which noted significant lung function improvements [20, 22], while two others observed enhanced health care utilization (HCU) [17, 18].

Three articles describe a small percentage of patients who were already using asthma biologicals at baseline and/or during assessment, which might have influenced the results [19, 20, 22]. However, Denton et al. [20] concluded that the significant improvement in asthma outcomes remained statistically and clinically significant after excluding patients commenced on biologicals.

Furthermore, earlier research by Irwin et al. [15] did not specifically examine improvements in the aforementioned clinical outcome parameters but emphasized the potential effectiveness of addressing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and enhancing adherence as key strategies for managing difficult-to-control asthma.

Finally, a few studies explored the use of eHealth to assess treatable traits in a home setting. Tay et al. [19] (investigated adherence in a small subgroup of 15 patients using a smart inhaler and reported an adherence rate of 87%. Similarly, Denton et al. [20] used an electronic adherence monitor in 41% of patients but did not report adherence outcomes. In contrast, Heaney et al. [16] included peak flow measurements as part of their systematic assessment. However, the results of these measurements were not disclosed in the article.

Conclusion of the literature review

The existing literature underscores the potential benefits of systematic assessment, yet the overall evidence remains limited and inconclusive. Most studies varied in terms of study population, methods, outcome measures, content of the systematic assessment, and follow-up duration. Consequently, it is clear that a larger randomized controlled trial is necessary to more effectively assess the benefits of a comprehensive systematic assessment.

Hence, we propose a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial investigating an in-depth multidimensional systematic assessment of hidden treatable traits, extended to include digital home monitoring and multiple PROMs, in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma who have previously undergone a conventional assessment: the EXACT supported by eHealth, or EXACT@home for short. This study aims to further improve the systematic assessment and management of patients with severe asthma, thereby establishing a more patient-centred approach and optimising the indication for treatment with biologicals.

Study protocol: EXpert Asthma Copd Trajectory with digital support (EXACT@home)

The EXACT@home study was initiated to provide evidence on the added value of a comprehensive, multidimensional, and systematic assessment of hidden treatable traits, including digital home monitoring and multiple PROMs, in severe, uncontrolled asthma. The aim is to enhance personalized treatment strategies and optimize the indication for treatment with biologicals. The primary objective is to determine whether the EXACT@home systematic assessment program reduces the proportion of patients requiring therapy with biologicals after six months of follow-up. Secondary objectives include assessing the proportion of patients treated with biologicals after 12 months and evaluating changes in asthma control, quality of life, and exacerbation frequency over the same period as a result of the program.

Study design

The EXACT@home study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial with a superiority design. The study will be conducted at the Centre of Excellence for Severe Asthma at Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland (FGV), with patients recruited from this hospital and its affiliated hospitals. The study has an open-label design to determine the effect of the EXACT@home program in a real-life situation.

Eligible patients diagnosed with severe asthma and recommended for treatment with biologicals are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the control or intervention arm. The intervention arm undergoes a 6-week EXACT@home program that assesses and targets treatable traits before a treatment decision is made, consisting of biologicals or treatment of identified treatable traits. The control arm directly receives standard of care (considered the gold standard) consisting of treatment with a biological. The follow-up period will be 12 months. The study outline is presented in Fig. 1. Ethics approval for the EXACT@home study was provided by the Medical research Ethics Committees United (NL79996.100.22). Approval by the Institutional Research Board and Board of Directors of the FGV hospital was also provided. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05831566).

Fig. 1
figure 1

EXACT@home study design. The EXACT@home study consists of 7 visits for participants in the intervention arm and 6 visits for those in the control arm. The systematic assessment program for the intervention arm spans visits 1 to 3 and lasts for 6 weeks. From visit 1 to visit 4 (12 weeks), patients in the intervention arm are monitored at home using a portable spirometer, FeNO meter (for a subgroup), and an activity tracker (Corsano). Additionally, they use a second activity tracker (MoveMonitor) for one week between visits 2 and 3. From visit 1 to visit 7 (12 months), they also use the PDHE and a digital inhaler with the application providing feedback and reminders. In the control arm, patients use the PDHE and digital inhaler without the application for 12 months

Full size image

Study population

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with severe uncontrolled asthma who were eligible for treatment with biologicals according to the regional asthma multi-disciplinary consultation (MDC) organized by the Centre of Excellence for Severe Asthma, FGV are included by the coordinating investigator. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table 2. Thirteen affiliated hospitals (Erasmus Medical Centre (ErasmusMC), Haaglanden MC, Maasstad-, Groene Hart-, Ikazia-, Albert Schweitzer-, Van Weel Bethesda-, Admiraal de Ruyter-, Amphia-, ZorgSaam-, Tweesteden-, Bravis- Spijkenisse- and Beatrix hospital) in the southwest region of the Netherlands contribute to this regional asthma MDC. The MDC is used to diagnose severe asthma and make recommendations for biologicals in patients who have previously undergone a conventional assessment at the local affiliated hospital. Currently considered the gold standard, the MDC has the potential to reduce hospital admissions and asthma exacerbations, thereby improving the overall quality of life for people with severe asthma [24]. However, the complexity and heterogeneity of difficult-to-treat asthma often makes it challenging to have a complete picture of a patient and their individual treatable traits before diagnosing severe asthma and initiating a treatment with biologicals. The EXACT@home study aims to further improve the assessment of treatable traits and if necessary reconsider treatment with biologicals. Eligible patients from the local affiliated hospitals are referred to the FGV hospital if they meet the inclusion criteria, do not meet the exclusion criteria (Table 2) and express an interest in participating in the EXACT@home study.

Table 2 In- and exclusion criteria
Full size table

Study procedures

The EXACT@home study includes a 12-month follow-up period, with 7 study visits for the intervention arm and 6 for the control arm (Fig. 1). During the initial visit, patients are randomly assigned to either arm.

Both arms complete a variety of PROMs addressing different treatable traits (Table 3). In addition, the intervention arm starts utilizing digital tools for home monitoring of treatable traits, which include the following 5 digital devices and/or mobile applications (Table 4):

  1. 1)

    Gezondheidsmeter, Curavista®: a Personalized Digital Healthcare Environment (PDHE) application including the following features: an information desk providing disease specifics and medication guidance (including inhaler technique), a personalized asthma action plan detailing exacerbation management, options for eConsultation with healthcare providers, an online diary for symptom tracking, PROMs for evaluation, and the capacity to measure lung function and Fractional exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO), along with the ability to view these results (Suppl. 3). The PDHE thereby helps to improve self-management skills and promote behavioral change [28, 29].

  2. 2)

    Spirobank Oxi, MIR®: a portable spirometer, integrated with the PDHE, enabling patients to measure their lung function in various settings. This facilitates the identification of dysfunctional breathing patterns and triggers of airway inflammation [30,31,32,33,34].

  3. 3)

    Cardiowatch 327–2, Corsano®: A wrist-worn activity monitor, designed as a wristband and equipped with its own application, tracking physical activity, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, and sleep patterns. It, among others, serves as a guidance tool to enhance physical activity levels [35].

  4. 4)

    BF-Digihaler-DS, Teva®: A digital dry powder inhaler (DPI) containing 160/4.5 µg budesonide/formoterol, integrated with its own application, monitoring adherence and inhaler technique and providing reminders and feedback for improvement [36, 37].

Table 3 PROMs as part of the EXACT@home multi-dimensional systematic assessment of treatable traits
Full size table
Table 4 Digital techniques as part of the EXACT@home multi-dimensional systematic assessment of treatable traits
Full size table

At visit 2, patients begin using a triaxial activity tracker (MoveMonitor, McRoberts®) for one week. Worn as a strap on the lower back, this device measures posture and detects movement (Table 4). Patients also complete the Nijmegen Screening Clinical Instrument (NCSI), a comprehensive PROM that provides insights into the nature and severity of issues related to chronic conditions like asthma [38] (Suppl. 4). Additionally, they fill out the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), which assesses their knowledge, skills, and confidence in managing their condition, enabling tailored care [42] (Table 3). Patients undergo comprehensive spirometry and oscillometry measurements and are assessed by a physiotherapist, who observes their breathing pattern and conducts tests such as the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) [46] and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) [47]. Based on these evaluations, the physiotherapist provides recommendations regarding the initiation of rehabilitation. During visit 3 a systematic assessment of treatable traits is performed by the respiratory nurse and the pulmonologist according to the alphabet described by Honkoop et al. [14] (Suppl. 2), incorporating the results of the assessment by the physiotherapist, the spirometry and oscillometry measurements, the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and the digital home monitoring. If treatable traits are identified (e.g. non-adherence and physical inactivity), treatment for these are initiated. Otherwise, if no treatable traits are identified, or if the disease remains uncontrolled after fully addressing identified traits, treatment with biologicals will be initiated as decided during the MDC. In contrast, patients in the control arm directly receive treatment with biologicals at visit 1 as decided during the MDC. Patients in the control arm also use the PDHE to complete PROMs and the digital inhaler to measure adherence after the initiation of treatment with biologicals. However, unlike the intervention arm, the digital inhaler in the control arm is not connected to an application that provides reminders and feedback. Both patients in the intervention and control arm are required to switch their inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta agonist (ICS/LABA) to the BF-digihaler-DS at the time of inclusion. If the patient is unable to cope with the device or cannot tolerate budesonide/formoterol, they will be switched to an alternative first-line treatment in accordance with the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines [1]. This adjustment does not lead to exclusion from the study, given the primary intention-to-treat design.

In both arms, spirometry and oscillometry with reversibility, along with a FeNO measurement, are conducted at visit 3. Regular spirometry and FeNO measurements are then performed at visits 5 and 7. Additionally, the ACQ and Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) [48] are completed at every visit in both arms. The GETE provides a global assessment of treatment efficacy by both clinicians and patients, with scores such as excellent, good, moderate, poor, or worsening. Starting at visit 3 in the control arm and visit 4 in the intervention arm, a flowchart incorporating ACQ, FEV1, and GETE is used at each visit to guide decisions regarding the continuation of treatments (Fig. 2). For the first three months after the initiation of new treatment in both arms, a treatment switch is only considered if the outcome is rated as"poor."After this period, a treatment switch is considered if the outcome is rated as"fair"or"poor."

Fig. 2
figure 2

Algorithm guiding treatment in both the intervention- and control arm. Abbreviations: GETE, global evaluation of treatment effectiveness; ACQ, asthma control questionnaire; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s; Δ >, improvement; Δ <, worsening. This flowchart is also being utilized in the ExCluSie-F study conducted by Redel et al. (NCT05304039)

Full size image

Outcomes

Primary endpoint

Reduction in number of patients treated with biologicals in the EXACT@home intervention arm compared to the control arm after 6 months follow-up.

Secondary endpoints

  • Reduction in number of patients treated with biologicals in the EXACT@home intervention arm compared to the control arm after 12 months follow-up.

The difference in the following variables between the intervention—and control arm during follow-up is assessed:

  • Asthma control: Asthma control is determined using the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) [49].

  • Quality of life: Disease-specific quality of life is assessed using the mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) [50, 51].

  • Exacerbation frequency: the number of exacerbations requiring prednisolone with or without antibiotics during the study period is documented.

Data management

All personal data in this study will be handled in compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Dutch Implementation Act of the General Data Protection Regulation (In Dutch: Uitvoeringswet AVG, UAVG). Patient identifiers will be pseudonymized in all databases and applications to ensure confidentiality.

Sample size

In the absence of comparable studies, we aim to assess the reduction of biologicals in the intervention arm compared to the control arm. We expect approximately 75% of patients to remain on the initial biological at the end of the study [10, 52] and ≤ 45% of patients in the intervention arm ultimately requiring a biological [21]. With 80% power, an alpha of 0.01 (Bonferroni correction for 5 primary and secondary parameters), a superiority margin of 0, a sampling ratio of 1, and expected proportions of 45% in the intervention arm and 75% in the control arm, a two-tailed superiority test comparing two proportions (taking into account a total dropout of 20%) results in 69 patients in each arm.

Randomisation

Patients will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or control arm in a 1:1 ratio using variable block randomization via Castor EDC, performed by the coordinating investigator. The block sizes will be 2, 4, and 6. Blinding between the two arms is not possible due to the study design.

Statistical analysis

This study will use an intention-to-treat analysis (primary analysis), incorporating data from all included patients, including those who drop out, change their initial treatment, or have protocol non-compliance. Additionally, a per-protocol analysis will be performed. To determine if there is a significant reduction in prescription of biologicals in the intervention arm compared to the control arm at 6 and 12 months, a Chi-squared test will be applied. A repeated measurements analysis approach will be applied to assess the differences between the intervention and control arm and/or changes over time for all other secondary variables.

Safety

Serious adverse (device) events (SA(D)Es) are systematically monitored and reported in accordance with regulatory requirements and timelines. Although this is a low-risk, open-label study, a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) is established to provide safety monitoring. The DSMB will conduct periodic reviews of safety (SA(D)Es), feasibility, and study futility every six months. In addition, since the BF-digihaler-DS has not yet received authorization from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), safety assessments will be carried out throughout the study. However, the BF-digihaler is identical to the DuoResp Spiromax 160 µg/4.5 µg by Teva®, aside from the addition of the digital system (DS), is already available on the market for use in standard asthma care. Therefore, no significant risks are anticipated.

Discussion

Although severe asthma represents a minority of the asthma population, it accounts for a significant healthcare and disease burden. Its heterogeneous nature requires a personalised approach, breaking down the disease into treatable traits unique to each individual. In severe cases, these traits are often hidden, making the disease seem refractory. A multi-dimensional assessment is therefore crucial, categorising traits into pulmonary, extrapulmonary and behavioural/lifestyle domains, followed by tailored treatments based on the identified traits [4, 23, 53]. Effective identification and treatment of these traits can potentially reduce the need for costly asthma biologicals.

While existing literature provides limited evidence on the impact of a treatable trait-based multidimensional assessment in difficult-to-treat or severe asthma examining different clinical outcome measures, there’s a general consensus on its potential positive effects. In addition, the role of digital home monitoring in identifying and managing treatable traits, as well as the potential reduction in biological prescriptions resulting from systematic assessment remains underexplored.

In conclusion, we identified a lack of high-quality data on the effect of a systematic assessment of treatable traits specifically concerning digital home monitoring and its influence on biological prescription. With this open label, randomized controlled trial we aim to provide evidence on the impact of such a systematic assessment on biological prescription, asthma control, quality of life and exacerbation frequency.

Dissemination policy

The results will be made publicly available through presentations at national and international conferences, as well as through publication in scientific journals. The funding parties will have no involvement in the disclosure of the research findings.

Data availability

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ICS:

Inhaled corticosteroids

(m)OCS:

(Maintenance) oral corticosteroids

PROM:

Patient reported outcome measure

ACT and ACQ:

Asthma control test and questionnaire

AQLQ:

Asthma quality of life questionnaire

HCU:

Health care utilization

FEV1:

Forced expiratory volume in 1 s

TRA:

Therapy resistant asthma

GERD:

Gastroesophageal reflux disease

MDC:

Multi-disciplinary consultation

PDHE:

Personal digital healthcare environment

FeNO:

Fractional exhaled Nitric Oxide

DPI:

Dry powder inhaler

NCSI:

Nijmegen Screening Clinical Instrument

6MWT:

6-Minute Walk Test

SPPB:

Short physical performance battery

LABA:

Long-acting beta-agonist

GINA:

Global Initiative for Asthma

GETE:

Global evaluation of treatment effectiveness

GDPR:

General Data Protection Regulation

SA(D)E:

Serious adverse (device) events

DSMB:

Data safety monitoring board

mMRC:

(Modified) Medical Research Council dyspnea scale

References

  1. Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). Global Strategy for Asthma management and Prevention 2023. Available from: https://ginasthma.org/2023-gina-main-report/.

  2. Hekking PW, Wener RR, Amelink M, Zwinderman AH, Bouvy ML, Bel EH. The prevalence of severe refractory asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;135(4):896–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chung KF, Wenzel SE, Brozek JL, Bush A, Castro M, Sterk PJ, et al. International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(2):343–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Agusti A, Bel E, Thomas M, Vogelmeier C, Brusselle G, Holgate S, et al. Treatable traits: toward precision medicine of chronic airway diseases. Eur Respir J. 2016;47(2):410–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Agusti A, Bafadhel M, Beasley R, Bel EH, Faner R, Gibson PG, et al. Precision medicine in airway diseases: moving to clinical practice. Eur Respir J. 2017;50(4):1701655.

  6. Gibson PG, McDonald VM, Marks GB. Asthma in older adults. Lancet. 2010;376(9743):803–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sadatsafavi M, Lynd L, Marra C, Carleton B, Tan WC, Sullivan S, et al. Direct health care costs associated with asthma in British Columbia. Can Respir J. 2010;17(2):74–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Neill S, Sweeney J, Patterson CC, Menzies-Gow A, Niven R, Mansur AH, et al. The cost of treating severe refractory asthma in the UK: an economic analysis from the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry. Thorax. 2015;70(4):376–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bourdin A, Fabry-Vendrand C, Ostinelli J, Ait-Yahia M, Darnal E, Bouee S, et al. The Burden of Severe Asthma in France: A Case-Control Study Using a Medical Claims Database. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(5):1477–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van Toor JJ, van der Mark SC, Kappen JH, In ‘t Veen J, Braunstahl GJ. Mepolizumab add-on therapy in a real world cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: response rate, effectiveness, and safety. J Asthma. 2021;58(5):651–8.

  11. Agache I, Rocha C, Beltran J, Song Y, Posso M, Sola I, et al. Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma. Allergy. 2020;75(5):1043–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Agache I, Beltran J, Akdis C, Akdis M, Canelo-Aybar C, Canonica GW, et al. Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma. Allergy. 2020;75(5):1023–42.

  13. van den Akker EF, Van’t Hul AJ, Birnie E, Chavannes NH, Rutten-van Molken MP, In’t Veen JC. Comprehensive Diagnostic Assessment of Health Status of Patients with Asthma or COPD: A Delphi Panel Study among Dutch Experts. COPD. 2017;14(2):190–9.

  14. Honkoop PJ, Pinnock H, Kievits-Smeets RM, Sterk PJ, Dekhuijzen PN, In ‘t Veen JC. Adaptation of a difficult-to-manage asthma programme for implementation in the Dutch context: a modified e-Delphi. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2017;27:16086.

  15. Irwin RS, Curley FJ, French CL. Difficult-to-control asthma. Contributing factors and outcome of a systematic management protocol. Chest. 1993;103(6):1662–9.

  16. Heaney LG, Conway E, Kelly C, Johnston BT, English C, Stevenson M, et al. Predictors of therapy resistant asthma: outcome of a systematic evaluation protocol. Thorax. 2003;58(7):561–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gibeon D, Heaney LG, Brightling CE, Niven R, Mansur AH, Chaudhuri R, et al. Dedicated severe asthma services improve health-care use and quality of life. Chest. 2015;148(4):870–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van der Meer AN, Pasma H, Kempenaar-Okkema W, Pelinck JA, Schutten M, Storm H, et al. A 1-day visit in a severe asthma centre: effect on asthma control, quality of life and healthcare use. Eur Respir J. 2016;48(3):726–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tay TR, Lee J, Radhakrishna N, Hore-Lacy F, Stirling R, Hoy R, et al. A Structured Approach to Specialist-referred Difficult Asthma Patients Improves Control of Comorbidities and Enhances Asthma Outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(4):956–64 e3.

  20. Denton E, Lee J, Tay T, Radhakrishna N, Hore-Lacy F, Mackay A, et al. Systematic Assessment for Difficult and Severe Asthma Improves Outcomes and Halves Oral Corticosteroid Burden Independent of Monoclonal Biologic Use. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(5):1616–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McDonald VM, Clark VL, Cordova-Rivera L, Wark PAB, Baines KJ, Gibson PG. Targeting treatable traits in severe asthma: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J. 2020;55(3):1901509.

  22. Lin T, Pham J, Denton E, Lee J, Hore-Lacy F, Sverrild A, et al. Trait profiles in difficult-to-treat asthma: Clinical impact and response to systematic assessment. Allergy. 2023;78(9):2418–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McDonald VM, Simpson JL, Higgins I, Gibson PG. Multidimensional assessment of older people with asthma and COPD: clinical management and health status. Age Ageing. 2011;40(1):42–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. van der Valk JPM, Kappen JH, van Campen J, Epping G, Retera J, de Bondt D, et al. Roadmap to improve regional care for patients with severe asthma. Clin Transl Allergy. 2021;11(10):e12080.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Dweik RA, Boggs PB, Erzurum SC, Irvin CG, Leigh MW, Lundberg JO, et al. An official ATS clinical practice guideline: interpretation of exhaled nitric oxide levels (FENO) for clinical applications. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(5):602–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Louis R, Satia I, Ojanguren I, Schleich F, Bonini M, Tonia T, et al. European respiratory society guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults. Eur Respir J. 2022;60:2101585.

  27. Nederlandse Vereniging van Artsen voor Longziekten en Tuberculose (NVALT). Richtlijn: Diagnostiek en behandeling van ernstig astma 2020. Available from: https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/diagnostiek_en_behandeling_van_ernstig_astma/startpagina_-_ernstig_astma.html.

  28. Ljungberg H, Carleborg A, Gerber H, Ofverstrom C, Wolodarski J, Menshi F, et al. Clinical effect on uncontrolled asthma using a novel digital automated self-management solution: a physician-blinded randomised controlled crossover trial. Eur Respir J. 2019;54(5):1900983.

  29. Moor CC, Mostard RLM, Grutters JC, Bresser P, Aerts J, Chavannes NH, et al. Home Monitoring in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(3):393–401.

  30. Kupczyk M, Hofman A, Koltowski L, Kuna P, Lukaszyk M, Buczylko K, et al. Home self-monitoring in patients with asthma using a mobile spirometry system. J Asthma. 2021;58(4):505–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Carpenter DM, Jurdi R, Roberts CA, Hernandez M, Horne R, Chan A. A Review of Portable Electronic Spirometers: Implications for Asthma Self-Management. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018;18(10):53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bjerg A, Ljungberg H, Dierschke K, Akerberg-Krook E, Andersson UBK, Olin AC, et al. Shorter time to clinical decision in work-related asthma using a digital tool. ERJ Open Res. 2020;6(3):00259–2020.

  33. Deenstra DD, van Helvoort HAC, Djamin RS, van Zelst C, In’t Veen J, Antons JC, et al. Prevalence of hyperventilation in patients with asthma. J Asthma. 2022; 59(8):1560–7.

  34. Ring B, Burbank AJ, Mills K, Ivins S, Dieffenderfer J, Hernandez ML. Validation of an app-based portable spirometer in adolescents with asthma. J Asthma. 2021;58(4):497–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. van ‘t Hul AJ, Frouws S, van den Akker E, van Lummel R, Starrenburg-Razenberg A, van Bruggen A, et al. Decreased physical activity in adults with bronchial asthma. Respir Med. 2016;114:72–7.

  36. Mosnaim GS, Hoyte FCL, Safioti G, Brown R, Hill TD, Li T, et al. Effectiveness of a Maintenance and Reliever Digihaler System in Asthma: 24-Week Randomized Study (CONNECT2). J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2024;12(2):385–95 e4.

  37. Hale EM, Greene G, Mulvey C, Mokoka MC, van Boven JFM, Cushen B, et al. Use of digital measurement of medication adherence and lung function to guide the management of uncontrolled asthma (INCA Sun): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised clinical trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(7):591–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Peters JB, Daudey L, Heijdra YF, Molema J, Dekhuijzen PN, Vercoulen JH. Development of a battery of instruments for detailed measurement of health status in patients with COPD in routine care: the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):901–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Plaza V, Fernandez-Rodriguez C, Melero C, Cosio BG, Entrenas LM, de Llano LP, et al. Validation of the ‘Test of the Adherence to Inhalers’ (TAI) for Asthma and COPD Patients. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2016;29(2):142–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Marshall AL, Smith BJ, Bauman AE, Kaur S. Reliability and validity of a brief physical activity assessment for use by family doctors. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(5):294–7; discussion -7.

  41. Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep. 1991;14(6):540–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rademakers J, Nijman J, van der Hoek L, Heijmans M, Rijken M. Measuring patient activation in The Netherlands: translation and validation of the American short form Patient Activation Measure (PAM13). BMC Public Health. 2012;12:577.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bestall JC, Paul EA, Garrod R, Garnham R, Jones PW, Wedzicha JA. Usefulness of the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale as a measure of disability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 1999;54(7):581–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Doorn PVCP, Folgering HTM. Een vragenlijst voor hyperventilatieklachten [A questionnaire for hyperventilation syndrome]. De Psycholoog. 1983;18:573–7.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zigmond ASSR. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Laboratories ATSCoPSfCPF. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(1):111–7.

  47. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994;49(2):M85-94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bousquet J, Rao S, Manga V. Global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE) is an accurate predictor of response to omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma: A pooled analysis. Eur Respir J. 44(58).

  49. Juniper EF, O’Byrne PM, Guyatt GH, Ferrie PJ, King DR. Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure asthma control. Eur Respir J. 1999;14(4):902–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Cox FM, Ferrie PJ, King DR. Development and validation of the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Eur Respir J. 1999;14(1):32–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Ferrie PJ, Griffith LE. Measuring quality of life in asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993;147(4):832–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Dupin C, Belhadi D, Guilleminault L, Gamez AS, Berger P, De Blay F, et al. Effectiveness and safety of dupilumab for the treatment of severe asthma in a real-life French multi-centre adult cohort. Clin Exp Allergy. 2020;50(7):789–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. McDonald VM, Fingleton J, Agusti A, Hiles SA, Clark VL, Holland AE, et al. Treatable traits: a new paradigm for 21st century management of chronic airway diseases: treatable traits down under international workshop report. Eur Respir J. 2019;53(5):1802058.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

The research received an unrestricted grant from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Furthermore, the funding includes contributions from the research group in the Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland hospital and transformation funds from health insurance companies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Franciscus Gasthuis and Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    L. Bult, G. J. Braunstahl, P. P. Hekking, J. H. Kappen, M. de la Roij - Hartmans, Y. Türk & J. C. C. M. in ‘t Veen

  2. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    L. Bult, G. J. Braunstahl, J. G. J. V. Aerts & J. C. C. M. in ‘t Veen

  3. Pulmonary Rehabilitation Center Revant, Breda, the Netherlands

    D. Bänffer

  4. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands

    J. S. J. A. van Campen & R. Wolters

  5. Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Franciscus Gasthuis and Vlietland, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    M. S. van Daalen & E. C. Vasbinder

  6. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, The Netherlands

    Y. van Dooren

  7. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    U. Flanders

  8. Department of Physiotherapy, Franciscus Gasthuis and Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    E. S. Geurts

  9. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    R. Heller - Baan

  10. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Beatrix Hospital, Gorinchem, The Netherlands

    M. J. A. Jans

  11. National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma, London, Asthma, UK

    J. H. Kappen

  12. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    R. C. A. Mies

  13. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Bravis Hospital, Bergen Op Zoom & Roosendaal, The Netherlands

    B. Oppedijk

  14. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands

    S. Van der Sar - Van der Brugge

  15. Pulmonary Rehabilitation Center, Dutch Asthma Center Davos (NAD), Davos, Switzerland

    Y. Türk

  16. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Admiraal de Ruyter Hospital, Goes, The Netherlands

    E. Vis

  17. STZ Center of Excellence for Asthma, COPD, Respiratory Allergy and Occupational Lung Diseases, Department of Pulmonology, Franciscus Gasthuis en Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    L. Bult

Authors
  1. L. Bult
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. J. Braunstahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. G. J. V. Aerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Bänffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. S. J. A. van Campen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. S. van Daalen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Y. van Dooren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. U. Flanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. E. S. Geurts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. P. P. Hekking
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. R. Heller - Baan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  12. M. J. A. Jans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  13. J. H. Kappen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  14. R. C. A. Mies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  15. B. Oppedijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  16. M. de la Roij - Hartmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  17. S. Van der Sar - Van der Brugge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  18. Y. Türk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  19. E. Vis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  20. R. Wolters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  21. E. C. Vasbinder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  22. J. C. C. M. in ‘t Veen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LB and JV conducted the assessment and selection of articles from the PubMed searches, GJ was consulted in case of author disagreements. JV initiated the EXACT@home trial and acquired the funding. LB, JV, GJ, ECV and MD were involved in the study design and protocol. PH, YT, JH, MR, EG, JC, SS, YD, EV, UF, RH, MJ, BP, RM, RW and DB participated in recruitment and selection of study patients. LB is the coordinating investigator, JV is the principal investigator. LB, JV, MD, ECV, GJ, PH, and JT contributed to main manuscript text. All authors have thoroughly read, critically revised, and approved the submitted version of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Bult.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval for the EXACT@home study was provided by the Medical research Ethics Committees United (NL79996.100.22). Approval by the Institutional Research Board and Board of Directors of the Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland (FGV) hospital was also provided. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05831566). Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects (supplement 5).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

LB: Personal fees and/or speaker fees from Teva, Sanofi. GB: Grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Teva, Sanofi, GSK, ALK, Novartis, Glaxo Smith Kline, Sanofi, Chiesi. JA: none DB: none JC: Personal fees and/or speaker fees from Astra Zeneca, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Chiesi, GSK MD: none YD: none UF: none EG: none PH: none RH: none MJ: none JK: Grants and/or personal fees from ALK, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Boerhinger, Teva, Viatris, Stallergen, Abbot, all outside the submitted work. RM: none BO: none MR: none SS: Personal fees and/or speaker fees from Genzyme, Chiesi, GSK, Boehringer Ingelhem, Astra Zeneca YT: none EV: Speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Periscaldes, Springer Media BV, GSK RW: none ECV: Unconditional research grants from AstraZeneca and Pfizer JV: Unrestricted faculty research grants from GSK, Teva, AZ, Chiesi, Sanofi, and speaker fees from AZ, GSK, Sanofi, Chiesi, Stichting RoLeX and Health Investment.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bult, L., Braunstahl, G.J., Aerts, J.G.J.V. et al. The effect of a systematic multi-dimensional assessment in severe uncontrolled asthma: a literature review and protocol for an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized-controlled trial (EXACT@home study). BMC Pulm Med 25, 240 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12890-025-03646-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12890-025-03646-5

Keywords

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

ISSN: 1471-2466

Contact us