Objective: To report the results of a workshop regarding asthma management programs and centers (AMPCs) in Brazil, so that they can be used as a tool for the improvement and advancement of current and future AMPCs. Methods: The workshop consisted of five presentations and the corresponding group discussions. The working groups discussed the following themes: implementation of asthma management strategies; human resources needed for AMPCs; financial resources needed for AMPCs; and operational maintenance of AMPCs. Results: The workshop involved 39 participants, from all regions of the country, representing associations of asthma patients (n = 3), universities (n = 7), and AMPCs (n = 29). We found a direct relationship between a lack of planning and the failure of AMPCs. Based on the experiences reported during the workshop, the common assumptions about AMPCs in Brazil were the importance of raising awareness of managers; greater community participation; interdependence between primary care and specialized care; awareness of regionalization; and use of medications available in the public health system. Conclusions: Brazil already has a core of experience in the area of asthma management programs. The implementation of strategies for the management of chronic respiratory disease and their incorporation into health care system protocols would seem to be a natural progression. However, there is minimal experience in this area. Joint efforts by individuals with expertise in AMPCs could promote the implementation of asthma management strategies, thus speeding the creation of treatment networks, which might have a multiplier effect, precluding the need for isolated centers to start from zero.

Objective:To evaluate the relationship between obesity and asthma. Methods:This was a preliminary cross-sectional analysis involving 925 subjects with mild-to-moderate or severe asthma evaluated between 2013 and 2015. Obesity was defined on the basis of body mass index (BMI) and abdominal circumference. We collected clinical, laboratory, and anthropometric parameters, as well as pulmonary function test results and data regarding comorbidities. The subjects also completed asthma control and quality of life questionnaires. Results:Obese individuals had a significantly higher number of neutrophils in peripheral blood than did nonobese individuals (p = 0.01). Among the obese individuals, 163 (61%) had positive skin-prick test results, as did 69% and 71% of the individuals classified as being overweight or normal weight, respectively. Obese individuals showed lower spirometric values than did nonobese individuals, and 32% of the obese individuals had uncontrolled asthma, a significantly higher proportion than that found in the other groups (p = 0.02). Conclusions:Obese individuals with asthma seem to present with poorer asthma control and lower pulmonary function values than do nonobese individuals. The proportion of subjects with nonatopic asthma was higher in the obese group. Our results suggest that obese individuals with asthma show a distinct inflammatory pattern and are more likely to present with difficult-to-control asthma than are nonobese individuals.

Background: Asthma is a syndrome with multiple phenotypes. Peripheral blood eosinophil counts might be the ideal biomarker to identify subjects with eosinophilic asthma. It is available, inexpensive, and it is associated with eosinophilia in sputum. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether blood eosinophilia is associated with asthma severity and to evaluate whether blood eosinophilia is associated with lack of control of asthma symptoms and airway obstruction. Methods: Case control study. The cases were subjects recruited from a cohort of patients with severe asthma, in Salvador-BR, demanding continuous inhaled corticosteroids and LABA. There were two control groups: 1) subjects with mild/moderate asthma, 2) subjects with no asthma. Subjects enrolled in the study answered questionnaires, had their blood and stool samples collected, performed spirometry and SPT. We established a cutoff ≥ 260 cells/mm3 for blood eosinophilia. Results: We evaluated 544 subjects in the case group, 452 subjects with mild to moderate asthma and 450 subjects with no asthma. The subjects of the case group had higher odds of presenting the eosinophilic phenotype in comparison to subjects with mild to moderate asthma [OR 1.60 95CI(1.19-2.16)] and no asthma [OR 3.93; 95CI(2.90-5.33)]. The eosinophilic phenotype, according to blood count, is associated with uncontrolled asthma [OR 1.56; 95CI(1.06-2.28)], but it is not associated with airway obstruction [OR 0.87; 95CI(0.61-1.24)]. Conclusion: We conclude that the blood eosinophilia is a biomarker associated with asthma severity and poor symptom control, but we found no association with reduced lung function.

Background: Improved understanding of the normal range of blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and conditions that influence them in non-asthmatic individuals should allow more accurate estimation of the threshold at which eosinophilic disease should be considered, diagnosed, and treated. This analysis investigated the impact of atopy, smoking, and parasitic infection on BEC.Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of non-asthmatic subjects from a case-control study (CONEP 450/10) conducted at the Program for Control of Asthma in Bahia (ProAR). Participant BECs were measured at baseline; correlations between predefined risk factors and BEC were assessed via univariate and stratified analysis.Results: Of the 454 participants included, 3% were helminth parasite-positive, 18% were nonhelminth parasite-positive; and 450 had BEC data. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) BEC was 152 (96, 252) cells/mL. Any positive skin prick test, elevated total immunoglobulin E, allergic rhinitis, and being a current smoker were all individually associated with higher BEC (p < 0.05) compared with BEC in participants without these factors, but having a non-helminthic parasitic infection was not. Participants with all 4 risk factors that were associated with higher BEC had a median (IQR) BEC of 192 cells/mL (94, 416) versus 106 cells/mL (70, 164) for those with no risk factors. Conclusions:In non-asthmatic subjects, atopy, allergic rhinitis, and current smoking status were associated with higher BEC compared with subjects without these factors, but BEC values were well below the threshold commonly accepted as normal. Therefore, BEC should be interpreted in the context of an individual's medical conditions and other BEC-influencing factors.

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.

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.

No abstract