Neal Patel, MD

Author’s note: In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

So how are things going? Enjoy part two of this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year.

Did you miss Part 1? Don’t worry, you can read Part 1 here (https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/practice-management-toolbox).

There are several private equity–backed GI practice management groups across the country. Why did you and your colleagues decide to partner with UD last year, and, how is the relationship going to date?
Mark Murphy, MD, UD Physician Executive Committee Member Center for Digestive and Liver Health in Savannah, Ga.

• “We previously investigated other partnerships but felt they really did not bring enough value to make our group stronger or more viable. United Digestive was different. The idea of partnering with like-minded gastroenterologists to become a larger, single-specialty entity, with contract negotiation leverage and economies of scale was appealing and would not be possible as a 10-person group. Further, the partnership represented an opportunity to eliminate debt, minimize future risk to younger partners, and yet also embrace an ability to add new services and physicians.

“There were expected hiccups in the beginning: specifically IT and HR issues, which were remedied appropriately and timely. One month after the partnership was completed, reports started coming out of China about a new viral illness – an illness that telescoped our perspective on the consequences of our decision into a timeline of months rather than years.

“UD’s response to the COVID-19 epidemic has been phenomenal. The organization made the tough, but proper clinical calls that limited risks to patients and staff. They came up with a game plan to salvage fiscal viability – rolling out telemedicine in a matter of days and establishing the manner in which patients with high acuity could still be seen and cared for expediently.

“As a solo GI practice, we would have struggled mightily to survive and might have gone bankrupt. Had we been part of a larger non-GI entity (a hospital or multispecialty group), we might have been pressured to engage in unsafe or unethical practices and not consistent with national societal recommendations. Instead, we found ourselves having active discussions with our GI colleagues about the right path forward.”

How do you feel UD has helped improve the quality of patient care and positively impacted patient satisfaction?
Aja McCutchen, MD

• “Prior to UD, we worked diligently to improve our centralized patient service center, phone trees, and optimize the time and communication between patients, providers, and our staff. We now have tools which help identify and track gaps in communication on all levels. We have been able to improve our MA work flow, shorten wait times, and improve the direct dialogue between our practice and our patients. We have also been able to enhance our ancillary service offerings and expand programs that directly benefit our patients.”

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C

• “I think our quality of care has always been top notch and that thankfully has not been altered. UD has concentrated on workflow optimization, enhanced training to our frontline teams, and improved scheduled processes to decrease patient wait time. UD is also paying closer attention to patient ratings, reviews, and calculating net promotor scores. ”

Have there been any initiatives in the first year which improved the management of the organization?
Elizabeth Escalante, Senior Regional Director of Operations, UD

• “Implementation of a business analytics tool was huge this year. It greatly improved visibility into the information we need to have at our fingertips in order to make data-driven decisions for our business. Drilling this down to the frontline manager has increased our understanding of what it truly takes to run a successful practice, and in turn, increased stakeholder buy-in.”

Lakeeta White, Clinical Office Team Lead, and Alexis Sweeney, Medical Assistant

• “The formation of our MA Advisory Committee has been instrumental in helping standardize best practices across the organization. It is comprised of medical assistants across our geographic footprint, and they provide feedback to the management team regarding process improvements, areas for continued training, and more.”

Though many positives may arise out of change, so can some challenges. Have there been any unforeseen hurdles you experience as a result of the new partnership with PE?
Elizabeth Escalante

• “Overall, I believe the changes to the structure of the practice and reorganization of leadership has been positive. As with any organization, one area of improvement is in communication.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

Author’s note: In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

So how are things going? Enjoy part two of this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year.

Did you miss Part 1? Don’t worry, you can read Part 1 here (https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/practice-management-toolbox).

There are several private equity–backed GI practice management groups across the country. Why did you and your colleagues decide to partner with UD last year, and, how is the relationship going to date?
Mark Murphy, MD, UD Physician Executive Committee Member Center for Digestive and Liver Health in Savannah, Ga.

• “We previously investigated other partnerships but felt they really did not bring enough value to make our group stronger or more viable. United Digestive was different. The idea of partnering with like-minded gastroenterologists to become a larger, single-specialty entity, with contract negotiation leverage and economies of scale was appealing and would not be possible as a 10-person group. Further, the partnership represented an opportunity to eliminate debt, minimize future risk to younger partners, and yet also embrace an ability to add new services and physicians.

“There were expected hiccups in the beginning: specifically IT and HR issues, which were remedied appropriately and timely. One month after the partnership was completed, reports started coming out of China about a new viral illness – an illness that telescoped our perspective on the consequences of our decision into a timeline of months rather than years.

“UD’s response to the COVID-19 epidemic has been phenomenal. The organization made the tough, but proper clinical calls that limited risks to patients and staff. They came up with a game plan to salvage fiscal viability – rolling out telemedicine in a matter of days and establishing the manner in which patients with high acuity could still be seen and cared for expediently.

“As a solo GI practice, we would have struggled mightily to survive and might have gone bankrupt. Had we been part of a larger non-GI entity (a hospital or multispecialty group), we might have been pressured to engage in unsafe or unethical practices and not consistent with national societal recommendations. Instead, we found ourselves having active discussions with our GI colleagues about the right path forward.”

How do you feel UD has helped improve the quality of patient care and positively impacted patient satisfaction?
Aja McCutchen, MD

• “Prior to UD, we worked diligently to improve our centralized patient service center, phone trees, and optimize the time and communication between patients, providers, and our staff. We now have tools which help identify and track gaps in communication on all levels. We have been able to improve our MA work flow, shorten wait times, and improve the direct dialogue between our practice and our patients. We have also been able to enhance our ancillary service offerings and expand programs that directly benefit our patients.”

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C

• “I think our quality of care has always been top notch and that thankfully has not been altered. UD has concentrated on workflow optimization, enhanced training to our frontline teams, and improved scheduled processes to decrease patient wait time. UD is also paying closer attention to patient ratings, reviews, and calculating net promotor scores. ”

Have there been any initiatives in the first year which improved the management of the organization?
Elizabeth Escalante, Senior Regional Director of Operations, UD

• “Implementation of a business analytics tool was huge this year. It greatly improved visibility into the information we need to have at our fingertips in order to make data-driven decisions for our business. Drilling this down to the frontline manager has increased our understanding of what it truly takes to run a successful practice, and in turn, increased stakeholder buy-in.”

Lakeeta White, Clinical Office Team Lead, and Alexis Sweeney, Medical Assistant

• “The formation of our MA Advisory Committee has been instrumental in helping standardize best practices across the organization. It is comprised of medical assistants across our geographic footprint, and they provide feedback to the management team regarding process improvements, areas for continued training, and more.”

Though many positives may arise out of change, so can some challenges. Have there been any unforeseen hurdles you experience as a result of the new partnership with PE?
Elizabeth Escalante

• “Overall, I believe the changes to the structure of the practice and reorganization of leadership has been positive. As with any organization, one area of improvement is in communication.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

Author’s note: In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

So how are things going? Enjoy part two of this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year.

Did you miss Part 1? Don’t worry, you can read Part 1 here (https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/practice-management-toolbox).

There are several private equity–backed GI practice management groups across the country. Why did you and your colleagues decide to partner with UD last year, and, how is the relationship going to date?
Mark Murphy, MD, UD Physician Executive Committee Member Center for Digestive and Liver Health in Savannah, Ga.

• “We previously investigated other partnerships but felt they really did not bring enough value to make our group stronger or more viable. United Digestive was different. The idea of partnering with like-minded gastroenterologists to become a larger, single-specialty entity, with contract negotiation leverage and economies of scale was appealing and would not be possible as a 10-person group. Further, the partnership represented an opportunity to eliminate debt, minimize future risk to younger partners, and yet also embrace an ability to add new services and physicians.

“There were expected hiccups in the beginning: specifically IT and HR issues, which were remedied appropriately and timely. One month after the partnership was completed, reports started coming out of China about a new viral illness – an illness that telescoped our perspective on the consequences of our decision into a timeline of months rather than years.

“UD’s response to the COVID-19 epidemic has been phenomenal. The organization made the tough, but proper clinical calls that limited risks to patients and staff. They came up with a game plan to salvage fiscal viability – rolling out telemedicine in a matter of days and establishing the manner in which patients with high acuity could still be seen and cared for expediently.

“As a solo GI practice, we would have struggled mightily to survive and might have gone bankrupt. Had we been part of a larger non-GI entity (a hospital or multispecialty group), we might have been pressured to engage in unsafe or unethical practices and not consistent with national societal recommendations. Instead, we found ourselves having active discussions with our GI colleagues about the right path forward.”

How do you feel UD has helped improve the quality of patient care and positively impacted patient satisfaction?
Aja McCutchen, MD

• “Prior to UD, we worked diligently to improve our centralized patient service center, phone trees, and optimize the time and communication between patients, providers, and our staff. We now have tools which help identify and track gaps in communication on all levels. We have been able to improve our MA work flow, shorten wait times, and improve the direct dialogue between our practice and our patients. We have also been able to enhance our ancillary service offerings and expand programs that directly benefit our patients.”

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C

• “I think our quality of care has always been top notch and that thankfully has not been altered. UD has concentrated on workflow optimization, enhanced training to our frontline teams, and improved scheduled processes to decrease patient wait time. UD is also paying closer attention to patient ratings, reviews, and calculating net promotor scores. ”

Have there been any initiatives in the first year which improved the management of the organization?
Elizabeth Escalante, Senior Regional Director of Operations, UD

• “Implementation of a business analytics tool was huge this year. It greatly improved visibility into the information we need to have at our fingertips in order to make data-driven decisions for our business. Drilling this down to the frontline manager has increased our understanding of what it truly takes to run a successful practice, and in turn, increased stakeholder buy-in.”

Lakeeta White, Clinical Office Team Lead, and Alexis Sweeney, Medical Assistant

• “The formation of our MA Advisory Committee has been instrumental in helping standardize best practices across the organization. It is comprised of medical assistants across our geographic footprint, and they provide feedback to the management team regarding process improvements, areas for continued training, and more.”

Though many positives may arise out of change, so can some challenges. Have there been any unforeseen hurdles you experience as a result of the new partnership with PE?
Elizabeth Escalante

• “Overall, I believe the changes to the structure of the practice and reorganization of leadership has been positive. As with any organization, one area of improvement is in communication.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

Author's note: This is the first of a two-part series. In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

Our guiding principle is to provide a best-in-class operational infrastructure, so independent gastroenterologists can focus on delivering the highest quality patient care. Thus, in the first year, significant efforts and capital have been invested into United Digestive’s scalable platform to promote organic growth, as well as facilitate a smooth transition for other groups and physicians joining the team. So how are things going? Enjoy this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year. Here’s what they had to say.
 

During the COVID-19 crisis, how has UD management responded? How has the UD management services organization model affected partner level physician (PLP) compensation?

Dr. Marc Rosenberg, UD Physician Executive Committee member:

• “Immediately, the entire leadership team recognized the threat of COVID to our community, patients, staff, and business. A multidisciplinary task force including clinical and business leaders utilized our PE partner’s vast resources, local hospital expertise, national societal recommendations and colleagues’ experiences from around the country to focus on protocols and procedures to protect our patients and staff. A few of the team’s timely decisions included: closing the majority of our patient fronting services, transitioning to telehealth, hiring an infection control consultant, allowing physical distancing of our staff with off sight work, instituting symptomatic pathways, donating personal protective gear to local hospitals, covering all benefits as well as provided resources to obtain government benefits to furloughed team members, developing a provider wellness program, and encouraging hospital coverage considerations for high risk providers. I also know the team is focusing on how we re-open at the appropriate time with necessary safety considerations, like investigating testing options and ensuring appropriate PPE is in place. The collaboration between clinical and business leadership has been tremendous through this evolving and challenging period. As for UD physician partner compensation, our model is uniquely organized such that the MSO covers all overhead expenses with partners contributing a fixed percentage of a partner’s collections, while others typically share overhead expenses. During uncertain times, like the COVID-19 crisis, it is reassuring to partners to know that they are not responsible for the cost of infrastructure (i.e. leases, capital equipment, EHR system, consultants, etc.) and staffing, including current and new associates.”

With formation of United Digestive as an MSO, has your day-to-day work life changed or your clinical decision-making been impacted?

Dr. Aja McCutchen, UD Physician Executive Committee Member:

• “With the formation of UD, my daily work life has changed very little; however, with their focus on improving “back-office” functions, my schedule is now fully optimized by reducing gaps from cancellations with same-day/next-day scheduling. In addition, the patient experience has been enhanced with decreased wait times, easier appointment scheduling, and quicker access to support staff. The procurement of business intelligence tools, and, more importantly, the implementation of dashboards, has provided much needed visibility across the organization allowing managerial decisions to be driven by accurate data.

From a clinical decision-making standpoint, Atlanta Gastroenterology was already armed with strong clinical teams and committees. We have been able to build upon our pre-existing committees and optimize their ability to steward best practices and develop clinical pathways. This, in turn, translates to consistency across the organization in the delivery of evidence-based, comprehensive GI care.”
 

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C, Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Supervisor:

• “The formation of UD has not affected my clinical decision-making abilities. In fact, this new platform is dedicated to empowering and establishing APPs as independent clinicians with appropriate physician oversight. As a result, I have welcomed more administrative responsibilities and have become more involved in business meetings and decision making. We have worked together to better utilize APPs using data to match supply with demand.”

Physician compensation improvement is typically a key concern for physicians who work with private equity MSOs. How has United Digestive performed for its partner-level physicians in year one?

Dr. Marc Rosenberg:

• “The MSO has helped to improve physician income – slowly at first and now on a steeper trajectory. We have been ahead of expected income improvement based on models we reviewed when evaluating the formations of an MSO in potential partnership with Frazier Healthcare Partners. United Digestive’s EBIDTA, of which each partner-level physician owns a significant percentage through shares from rollover proceeds, has grown impressively in one year. This has been achieved mostly through significant organic growth and to a lesser degree through mergers and acquisitions. UD has helped to enhance the bottom line through increased reimbursements from payor negotiated contracts, new revenue-generating service lines, and operational efficiencies.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonnenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates in Atlanta, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

*This story was updated on 6/1/2020.

Author's note: This is the first of a two-part series. In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

Our guiding principle is to provide a best-in-class operational infrastructure, so independent gastroenterologists can focus on delivering the highest quality patient care. Thus, in the first year, significant efforts and capital have been invested into United Digestive’s scalable platform to promote organic growth, as well as facilitate a smooth transition for other groups and physicians joining the team. So how are things going? Enjoy this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year. Here’s what they had to say.
 

During the COVID-19 crisis, how has UD management responded? How has the UD management services organization model affected partner level physician (PLP) compensation?

Dr. Marc Rosenberg, UD Physician Executive Committee member:

• “Immediately, the entire leadership team recognized the threat of COVID to our community, patients, staff, and business. A multidisciplinary task force including clinical and business leaders utilized our PE partner’s vast resources, local hospital expertise, national societal recommendations and colleagues’ experiences from around the country to focus on protocols and procedures to protect our patients and staff. A few of the team’s timely decisions included: closing the majority of our patient fronting services, transitioning to telehealth, hiring an infection control consultant, allowing physical distancing of our staff with off sight work, instituting symptomatic pathways, donating personal protective gear to local hospitals, covering all benefits as well as provided resources to obtain government benefits to furloughed team members, developing a provider wellness program, and encouraging hospital coverage considerations for high risk providers. I also know the team is focusing on how we re-open at the appropriate time with necessary safety considerations, like investigating testing options and ensuring appropriate PPE is in place. The collaboration between clinical and business leadership has been tremendous through this evolving and challenging period. As for UD physician partner compensation, our model is uniquely organized such that the MSO covers all overhead expenses with partners contributing a fixed percentage of a partner’s collections, while others typically share overhead expenses. During uncertain times, like the COVID-19 crisis, it is reassuring to partners to know that they are not responsible for the cost of infrastructure (i.e. leases, capital equipment, EHR system, consultants, etc.) and staffing, including current and new associates.”

With formation of United Digestive as an MSO, has your day-to-day work life changed or your clinical decision-making been impacted?

Dr. Aja McCutchen, UD Physician Executive Committee Member:

• “With the formation of UD, my daily work life has changed very little; however, with their focus on improving “back-office” functions, my schedule is now fully optimized by reducing gaps from cancellations with same-day/next-day scheduling. In addition, the patient experience has been enhanced with decreased wait times, easier appointment scheduling, and quicker access to support staff. The procurement of business intelligence tools, and, more importantly, the implementation of dashboards, has provided much needed visibility across the organization allowing managerial decisions to be driven by accurate data.

From a clinical decision-making standpoint, Atlanta Gastroenterology was already armed with strong clinical teams and committees. We have been able to build upon our pre-existing committees and optimize their ability to steward best practices and develop clinical pathways. This, in turn, translates to consistency across the organization in the delivery of evidence-based, comprehensive GI care.”
 

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C, Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Supervisor:

• “The formation of UD has not affected my clinical decision-making abilities. In fact, this new platform is dedicated to empowering and establishing APPs as independent clinicians with appropriate physician oversight. As a result, I have welcomed more administrative responsibilities and have become more involved in business meetings and decision making. We have worked together to better utilize APPs using data to match supply with demand.”

Physician compensation improvement is typically a key concern for physicians who work with private equity MSOs. How has United Digestive performed for its partner-level physicians in year one?

Dr. Marc Rosenberg:

• “The MSO has helped to improve physician income – slowly at first and now on a steeper trajectory. We have been ahead of expected income improvement based on models we reviewed when evaluating the formations of an MSO in potential partnership with Frazier Healthcare Partners. United Digestive’s EBIDTA, of which each partner-level physician owns a significant percentage through shares from rollover proceeds, has grown impressively in one year. This has been achieved mostly through significant organic growth and to a lesser degree through mergers and acquisitions. UD has helped to enhance the bottom line through increased reimbursements from payor negotiated contracts, new revenue-generating service lines, and operational efficiencies.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonnenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates in Atlanta, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

*This story was updated on 6/1/2020.

Author's note: This is the first of a two-part series. In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

Our guiding principle is to provide a best-in-class operational infrastructure, so independent gastroenterologists can focus on delivering the highest quality patient care. Thus, in the first year, significant efforts and capital have been invested into United Digestive’s scalable platform to promote organic growth, as well as facilitate a smooth transition for other groups and physicians joining the team. So how are things going? Enjoy this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year. Here’s what they had to say.
 

During the COVID-19 crisis, how has UD management responded? How has the UD management services organization model affected partner level physician (PLP) compensation?

Dr. Marc Rosenberg, UD Physician Executive Committee member:

• “Immediately, the entire leadership team recognized the threat of COVID to our community, patients, staff, and business. A multidisciplinary task force including clinical and business leaders utilized our PE partner’s vast resources, local hospital expertise, national societal recommendations and colleagues’ experiences from around the country to focus on protocols and procedures to protect our patients and staff. A few of the team’s timely decisions included: closing the majority of our patient fronting services, transitioning to telehealth, hiring an infection control consultant, allowing physical distancing of our staff with off sight work, instituting symptomatic pathways, donating personal protective gear to local hospitals, covering all benefits as well as provided resources to obtain government benefits to furloughed team members, developing a provider wellness program, and encouraging hospital coverage considerations for high risk providers. I also know the team is focusing on how we re-open at the appropriate time with necessary safety considerations, like investigating testing options and ensuring appropriate PPE is in place. The collaboration between clinical and business leadership has been tremendous through this evolving and challenging period. As for UD physician partner compensation, our model is uniquely organized such that the MSO covers all overhead expenses with partners contributing a fixed percentage of a partner’s collections, while others typically share overhead expenses. During uncertain times, like the COVID-19 crisis, it is reassuring to partners to know that they are not responsible for the cost of infrastructure (i.e. leases, capital equipment, EHR system, consultants, etc.) and staffing, including current and new associates.”

With formation of United Digestive as an MSO, has your day-to-day work life changed or your clinical decision-making been impacted?

Dr. Aja McCutchen, UD Physician Executive Committee Member:

• “With the formation of UD, my daily work life has changed very little; however, with their focus on improving “back-office” functions, my schedule is now fully optimized by reducing gaps from cancellations with same-day/next-day scheduling. In addition, the patient experience has been enhanced with decreased wait times, easier appointment scheduling, and quicker access to support staff. The procurement of business intelligence tools, and, more importantly, the implementation of dashboards, has provided much needed visibility across the organization allowing managerial decisions to be driven by accurate data.

From a clinical decision-making standpoint, Atlanta Gastroenterology was already armed with strong clinical teams and committees. We have been able to build upon our pre-existing committees and optimize their ability to steward best practices and develop clinical pathways. This, in turn, translates to consistency across the organization in the delivery of evidence-based, comprehensive GI care.”
 

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C, Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Supervisor:

• “The formation of UD has not affected my clinical decision-making abilities. In fact, this new platform is dedicated to empowering and establishing APPs as independent clinicians with appropriate physician oversight. As a result, I have welcomed more administrative responsibilities and have become more involved in business meetings and decision making. We have worked together to better utilize APPs using data to match supply with demand.”

Physician compensation improvement is typically a key concern for physicians who work with private equity MSOs. How has United Digestive performed for its partner-level physicians in year one?

Dr. Marc Rosenberg:

• “The MSO has helped to improve physician income – slowly at first and now on a steeper trajectory. We have been ahead of expected income improvement based on models we reviewed when evaluating the formations of an MSO in potential partnership with Frazier Healthcare Partners. United Digestive’s EBIDTA, of which each partner-level physician owns a significant percentage through shares from rollover proceeds, has grown impressively in one year. This has been achieved mostly through significant organic growth and to a lesser degree through mergers and acquisitions. UD has helped to enhance the bottom line through increased reimbursements from payor negotiated contracts, new revenue-generating service lines, and operational efficiencies.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonnenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates in Atlanta, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

*This story was updated on 6/1/2020.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if nocturnal dexmedetomidine prevents delirium and improves sleep in critically ill patients.

Design. Two-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, trial.

Setting and participants. This study was conducted in the intensive care units (ICU) at 2 centers in North America between 2013 and 2016. Adults admitted to the ICU and receiving intermittent or continuous sedatives and expected to require at least 48 hours of ICU care were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were presence of delirium, severe dementia, acute neurologic injury, severe bradycardia, hepatic encephalopathy, end-stage liver disease, and expected death within 24 hours.

Intervention. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nocturnal dexmedetomidine (0.2–0.7 mcg/kg/hr) or dextrose 5% in water. Patients, clinicians, bedside nurses, and all study personnel were blinded to study drug assignment throughout the study. All sedatives were halved before the study drug was administered each evening. As-needed intravenous midazolam was used while titrating up the study drug. Study drug was administered nightly until either ICU discharge or an adverse event occurred. Decisions regarding use of other analgesic and sedative therapy, including opioids, oral benzodiazepines, acetaminophen, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, were left to the discretion of the clinician. Sleep-promoting agents such as melatonin or trazodone were not allowed.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who remained free of delirium during their critical illness. Secondary outcomes included ICU days spent without delirium; duration of delirium; sleep quality; proportion of patients who ever developed coma; proportion of nocturnal hours spent at each Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) score; maximal nocturnal pain levels; antipsychotic, corticosteroid, and oral analgesic use; days of mechanical ventilation; ICU and hospital stay duration; and ICU and hospital mortality.

Main results. 100 patients were randomized, with 50 patients in each group. 89% of patients were mechanically ventilated, and the Prediction of Delirium in ICU (PRE-DELIRIC) score [1] was 54 in the dexmedetomidine group and 51 in the placebo group. Continuous propofol and fentanyl infusion at randomization was used in 49% and 80%, respectively. Duration of median ICU stay was 10 days in the dexmedetomidine group and 9 days in the placebo group. More patients in the dexmedetomidine group (40 of 50 patients [80%]) than in the placebo group (27 of 50 patients [54%]) remained free of delirium (relative risk [RR], 0.44, 95% confidence interval {CI} 0.23 to 0.82; P = 0.006). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of the first episode of delirium was similar between the dexmedetomidine (IQR 2.0 [0.6–2.7] days) and placebo (2.2 [0.7–3.2] days) groups (P = 0.73). The average Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire score also was similar (mean difference, 0.02, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.92) between the 2 groups. Incidence of hypotension or bradycardia did not differ significantly between the groups.

Conclusion. Nocturnal administration of low-dose dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduces the incidence of delirium during the ICU stay, and patient-reported sleep quality appears unchanged.

Delirium is a sudden state of confusion and/or disturbance of consciousness and cognition that is believed to result from acute brain dysfunction, including neurochemical disequilibrium. It often occurs in association with a general medical condition, such as various types of shock, sepsis, surgery, anesthesia, or electrolyte imbalance. Studies have shown that delirium is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients [2]. Most ICUs use a systematic assessment tool for early detection of delirium, such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), or the DSM-IV TR score system. The CAM-ICU is the most frequently used tool to evaluate for the presence of delirium in critically ill patients; it is scored as positive if the patient manifests both an acute change in mental status and inattention, and has either a RASS greater than 0 or disorganized thinking [3].

The level of evidence regarding delirium prevention is low. Ear plugs, eye masks, educational staff, supportive reorientation, and music have been studied as nonpharmacologic methods for preventing delirium [4]. From a pharmacologic standpoint, the dopamine D2 antagonist haloperidol has been explored as a therapy for both treating and preventing delirium, since the condition is thought to be associated with anticholinergic and excessive dopaminergic mechanisms. A randomized controlled study in 142 patients who received haloperidol 2.5 mg intravenously every 8 hours found that the duration of delirium did not differ between the haloperidol and the placebo groups [5]. The most feared adverse effects of haloperidol, such as akathisia, muscle stiffness, arrhythmia, or QT prolongation, did not occur more frequently in the haloperidol group. Similar results have been reported by Al-Qadheeb et al [6]. Pharmacologic prophylaxis of delirium using atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine has also been explored, but the level of evidence for this intervention remains very low. Current American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic management and do not firmly recommend any pharmacologic prevention for ICU delirium [7].

Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist that acts at the locus ceruleus, providing sedation and analgesia. Studies assessing the choice of sedation in the ICU found that the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol, compared to benzodiazepines, is associated with a lower rate of delirium occurrence, especially in mechanically ventilated patients [8,9]. Dexmedetomidine offers several potential advantages over other sedative drugs: it has little effect on cognition, has minimal anticholinergic effect, and may restore a natural sleep pattern. While propofol causes hypotension, respiratory depression, and deeper sedation, dexmedetomidine is associated with lighter sedation, a minimal effect on respiratory drive, and a milder hemodynamic effect. In a randomized controlled trial involving post-surgery ICU patients, dexmedetomidine partially restored a normal sleep pattern (eg, increased percentage of stage 2 non-rapid eye movement sleep), prolonged total sleep time, improved sleep efficiency, and increased sleep quality [10]; by improving overall sleep quality, dexmedetomidine potentially may prevent delirium. Another study that randomly assigned 700 ICU patients who underwent noncardiac surgery to dexmedetomidine infusion (0.1 mcg/kg/hr from ICU admission on the day of surgery until the following morning) or placebo reported a significantly reduced incidence of delirium in the dexmedetomidine group [11]. On the other hand, a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis that included 7 randomized controlled studies did not find a significant risk reduction of delirium with dexmedetomidine [12].

The current study by Skrobik et al was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial that examined the role of nocturnal dexmedetomidine in ICU delirium prevention in 100 ICU patients. Nocturnal administration of low-dose dexmedetomidine led to a statistically significant reduction in delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR of delirium, 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.82, which is similar to that suggested by previous studies). This study adds additional evidence regarding the use of dexmedetomidine for pharmacologic delirium prevention. It included many mechanically ventilated patients (89% of study population), strengthening the applicability of the result. Mechanical ventilation is a known risk factor for ICU delirium, and therefore this is an important population to study; previous trials largely included patients who were not mechanically ventilated. This study also supports the safety of dexmedetomidine infusion, especially in lower doses in critically ill patients, without significantly increasing the incidence of adverse events (mainly hypotension and bradycardia). The study protocol closely approximated real practice by allowing other analgesics, including opioids, and therefore suggests safety and real world applicability.

There are several confounding issues in this study. The study was blinded, and there was concern that the bedside nurses may have been able to identify the study drug based on the effects on heart rate. In addition, 50% of patients received antipsychotics. While baseline RASS score was significantly different between the 2 groups, patients in the dexmedetomidine group reached a deeper level of sedation during the study. Also, the protocol mandated halving the pre-existing sedative on the night of study drug initiation, which could have led to inadequate sedation in the placebo group. Placebo patients received propofol for a similar duration but at a higher dose compared to dexmedetomidine patients, and midazolam and fentanyl infusion was used in a similar pattern between the groups. The high exclusion rate (71%) limits the ability to generalize the results to all ICU patients.

Applications for Clinical Practice

ICU delirium is an important complication of critical illness and is potentially preventable. Benzodiazepines are associated with an increased risk of delirium, while there has been increasing interest in dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, because of its potential for delirium prevention. Evidence to date does not strongly support routine use of pharmacologic prevention of delirium; however, dexmedetomidine may be an option for sedation, as opposed to benzodiazepines or propofol, in selected patients and may potentially prevent delirium.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Neal Patel, MD, and Vichaya Arunthari, MD, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if nocturnal dexmedetomidine prevents delirium and improves sleep in critically ill patients.

Design. Two-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, trial.

Setting and participants. This study was conducted in the intensive care units (ICU) at 2 centers in North America between 2013 and 2016. Adults admitted to the ICU and receiving intermittent or continuous sedatives and expected to require at least 48 hours of ICU care were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were presence of delirium, severe dementia, acute neurologic injury, severe bradycardia, hepatic encephalopathy, end-stage liver disease, and expected death within 24 hours.

Intervention. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nocturnal dexmedetomidine (0.2–0.7 mcg/kg/hr) or dextrose 5% in water. Patients, clinicians, bedside nurses, and all study personnel were blinded to study drug assignment throughout the study. All sedatives were halved before the study drug was administered each evening. As-needed intravenous midazolam was used while titrating up the study drug. Study drug was administered nightly until either ICU discharge or an adverse event occurred. Decisions regarding use of other analgesic and sedative therapy, including opioids, oral benzodiazepines, acetaminophen, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, were left to the discretion of the clinician. Sleep-promoting agents such as melatonin or trazodone were not allowed.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who remained free of delirium during their critical illness. Secondary outcomes included ICU days spent without delirium; duration of delirium; sleep quality; proportion of patients who ever developed coma; proportion of nocturnal hours spent at each Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) score; maximal nocturnal pain levels; antipsychotic, corticosteroid, and oral analgesic use; days of mechanical ventilation; ICU and hospital stay duration; and ICU and hospital mortality.

Main results. 100 patients were randomized, with 50 patients in each group. 89% of patients were mechanically ventilated, and the Prediction of Delirium in ICU (PRE-DELIRIC) score [1] was 54 in the dexmedetomidine group and 51 in the placebo group. Continuous propofol and fentanyl infusion at randomization was used in 49% and 80%, respectively. Duration of median ICU stay was 10 days in the dexmedetomidine group and 9 days in the placebo group. More patients in the dexmedetomidine group (40 of 50 patients [80%]) than in the placebo group (27 of 50 patients [54%]) remained free of delirium (relative risk [RR], 0.44, 95% confidence interval {CI} 0.23 to 0.82; P = 0.006). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of the first episode of delirium was similar between the dexmedetomidine (IQR 2.0 [0.6–2.7] days) and placebo (2.2 [0.7–3.2] days) groups (P = 0.73). The average Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire score also was similar (mean difference, 0.02, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.92) between the 2 groups. Incidence of hypotension or bradycardia did not differ significantly between the groups.

Conclusion. Nocturnal administration of low-dose dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduces the incidence of delirium during the ICU stay, and patient-reported sleep quality appears unchanged.

Delirium is a sudden state of confusion and/or disturbance of consciousness and cognition that is believed to result from acute brain dysfunction, including neurochemical disequilibrium. It often occurs in association with a general medical condition, such as various types of shock, sepsis, surgery, anesthesia, or electrolyte imbalance. Studies have shown that delirium is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients [2]. Most ICUs use a systematic assessment tool for early detection of delirium, such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), or the DSM-IV TR score system. The CAM-ICU is the most frequently used tool to evaluate for the presence of delirium in critically ill patients; it is scored as positive if the patient manifests both an acute change in mental status and inattention, and has either a RASS greater than 0 or disorganized thinking [3].

The level of evidence regarding delirium prevention is low. Ear plugs, eye masks, educational staff, supportive reorientation, and music have been studied as nonpharmacologic methods for preventing delirium [4]. From a pharmacologic standpoint, the dopamine D2 antagonist haloperidol has been explored as a therapy for both treating and preventing delirium, since the condition is thought to be associated with anticholinergic and excessive dopaminergic mechanisms. A randomized controlled study in 142 patients who received haloperidol 2.5 mg intravenously every 8 hours found that the duration of delirium did not differ between the haloperidol and the placebo groups [5]. The most feared adverse effects of haloperidol, such as akathisia, muscle stiffness, arrhythmia, or QT prolongation, did not occur more frequently in the haloperidol group. Similar results have been reported by Al-Qadheeb et al [6]. Pharmacologic prophylaxis of delirium using atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine has also been explored, but the level of evidence for this intervention remains very low. Current American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic management and do not firmly recommend any pharmacologic prevention for ICU delirium [7].

Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist that acts at the locus ceruleus, providing sedation and analgesia. Studies assessing the choice of sedation in the ICU found that the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol, compared to benzodiazepines, is associated with a lower rate of delirium occurrence, especially in mechanically ventilated patients [8,9]. Dexmedetomidine offers several potential advantages over other sedative drugs: it has little effect on cognition, has minimal anticholinergic effect, and may restore a natural sleep pattern. While propofol causes hypotension, respiratory depression, and deeper sedation, dexmedetomidine is associated with lighter sedation, a minimal effect on respiratory drive, and a milder hemodynamic effect. In a randomized controlled trial involving post-surgery ICU patients, dexmedetomidine partially restored a normal sleep pattern (eg, increased percentage of stage 2 non-rapid eye movement sleep), prolonged total sleep time, improved sleep efficiency, and increased sleep quality [10]; by improving overall sleep quality, dexmedetomidine potentially may prevent delirium. Another study that randomly assigned 700 ICU patients who underwent noncardiac surgery to dexmedetomidine infusion (0.1 mcg/kg/hr from ICU admission on the day of surgery until the following morning) or placebo reported a significantly reduced incidence of delirium in the dexmedetomidine group [11]. On the other hand, a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis that included 7 randomized controlled studies did not find a significant risk reduction of delirium with dexmedetomidine [12].

The current study by Skrobik et al was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial that examined the role of nocturnal dexmedetomidine in ICU delirium prevention in 100 ICU patients. Nocturnal administration of low-dose dexmedetomidine led to a statistically significant reduction in delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR of delirium, 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.82, which is similar to that suggested by previous studies). This study adds additional evidence regarding the use of dexmedetomidine for pharmacologic delirium prevention. It included many mechanically ventilated patients (89% of study population), strengthening the applicability of the result. Mechanical ventilation is a known risk factor for ICU delirium, and therefore this is an important population to study; previous trials largely included patients who were not mechanically ventilated. This study also supports the safety of dexmedetomidine infusion, especially in lower doses in critically ill patients, without significantly increasing the incidence of adverse events (mainly hypotension and bradycardia). The study protocol closely approximated real practice by allowing other analgesics, including opioids, and therefore suggests safety and real world applicability.

There are several confounding issues in this study. The study was blinded, and there was concern that the bedside nurses may have been able to identify the study drug based on the effects on heart rate. In addition, 50% of patients received antipsychotics. While baseline RASS score was significantly different between the 2 groups, patients in the dexmedetomidine group reached a deeper level of sedation during the study. Also, the protocol mandated halving the pre-existing sedative on the night of study drug initiation, which could have led to inadequate sedation in the placebo group. Placebo patients received propofol for a similar duration but at a higher dose compared to dexmedetomidine patients, and midazolam and fentanyl infusion was used in a similar pattern between the groups. The high exclusion rate (71%) limits the ability to generalize the results to all ICU patients.

Applications for Clinical Practice

ICU delirium is an important complication of critical illness and is potentially preventable. Benzodiazepines are associated with an increased risk of delirium, while there has been increasing interest in dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, because of its potential for delirium prevention. Evidence to date does not strongly support routine use of pharmacologic prevention of delirium; however, dexmedetomidine may be an option for sedation, as opposed to benzodiazepines or propofol, in selected patients and may potentially prevent delirium.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Neal Patel, MD, and Vichaya Arunthari, MD, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if nocturnal dexmedetomidine prevents delirium and improves sleep in critically ill patients.

Design. Two-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, trial.

Setting and participants. This study was conducted in the intensive care units (ICU) at 2 centers in North America between 2013 and 2016. Adults admitted to the ICU and receiving intermittent or continuous sedatives and expected to require at least 48 hours of ICU care were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were presence of delirium, severe dementia, acute neurologic injury, severe bradycardia, hepatic encephalopathy, end-stage liver disease, and expected death within 24 hours.

Intervention. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nocturnal dexmedetomidine (0.2–0.7 mcg/kg/hr) or dextrose 5% in water. Patients, clinicians, bedside nurses, and all study personnel were blinded to study drug assignment throughout the study. All sedatives were halved before the study drug was administered each evening. As-needed intravenous midazolam was used while titrating up the study drug. Study drug was administered nightly until either ICU discharge or an adverse event occurred. Decisions regarding use of other analgesic and sedative therapy, including opioids, oral benzodiazepines, acetaminophen, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, were left to the discretion of the clinician. Sleep-promoting agents such as melatonin or trazodone were not allowed.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who remained free of delirium during their critical illness. Secondary outcomes included ICU days spent without delirium; duration of delirium; sleep quality; proportion of patients who ever developed coma; proportion of nocturnal hours spent at each Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) score; maximal nocturnal pain levels; antipsychotic, corticosteroid, and oral analgesic use; days of mechanical ventilation; ICU and hospital stay duration; and ICU and hospital mortality.

Main results. 100 patients were randomized, with 50 patients in each group. 89% of patients were mechanically ventilated, and the Prediction of Delirium in ICU (PRE-DELIRIC) score [1] was 54 in the dexmedetomidine group and 51 in the placebo group. Continuous propofol and fentanyl infusion at randomization was used in 49% and 80%, respectively. Duration of median ICU stay was 10 days in the dexmedetomidine group and 9 days in the placebo group. More patients in the dexmedetomidine group (40 of 50 patients [80%]) than in the placebo group (27 of 50 patients [54%]) remained free of delirium (relative risk [RR], 0.44, 95% confidence interval {CI} 0.23 to 0.82; P = 0.006). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of the first episode of delirium was similar between the dexmedetomidine (IQR 2.0 [0.6–2.7] days) and placebo (2.2 [0.7–3.2] days) groups (P = 0.73). The average Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire score also was similar (mean difference, 0.02, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.92) between the 2 groups. Incidence of hypotension or bradycardia did not differ significantly between the groups.

Conclusion. Nocturnal administration of low-dose dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduces the incidence of delirium during the ICU stay, and patient-reported sleep quality appears unchanged.

Delirium is a sudden state of confusion and/or disturbance of consciousness and cognition that is believed to result from acute brain dysfunction, including neurochemical disequilibrium. It often occurs in association with a general medical condition, such as various types of shock, sepsis, surgery, anesthesia, or electrolyte imbalance. Studies have shown that delirium is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients [2]. Most ICUs use a systematic assessment tool for early detection of delirium, such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), or the DSM-IV TR score system. The CAM-ICU is the most frequently used tool to evaluate for the presence of delirium in critically ill patients; it is scored as positive if the patient manifests both an acute change in mental status and inattention, and has either a RASS greater than 0 or disorganized thinking [3].

The level of evidence regarding delirium prevention is low. Ear plugs, eye masks, educational staff, supportive reorientation, and music have been studied as nonpharmacologic methods for preventing delirium [4]. From a pharmacologic standpoint, the dopamine D2 antagonist haloperidol has been explored as a therapy for both treating and preventing delirium, since the condition is thought to be associated with anticholinergic and excessive dopaminergic mechanisms. A randomized controlled study in 142 patients who received haloperidol 2.5 mg intravenously every 8 hours found that the duration of delirium did not differ between the haloperidol and the placebo groups [5]. The most feared adverse effects of haloperidol, such as akathisia, muscle stiffness, arrhythmia, or QT prolongation, did not occur more frequently in the haloperidol group. Similar results have been reported by Al-Qadheeb et al [6]. Pharmacologic prophylaxis of delirium using atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine has also been explored, but the level of evidence for this intervention remains very low. Current American College of Critical Care Medicine guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic management and do not firmly recommend any pharmacologic prevention for ICU delirium [7].

Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist that acts at the locus ceruleus, providing sedation and analgesia. Studies assessing the choice of sedation in the ICU found that the use of dexmedetomidine or propofol, compared to benzodiazepines, is associated with a lower rate of delirium occurrence, especially in mechanically ventilated patients [8,9]. Dexmedetomidine offers several potential advantages over other sedative drugs: it has little effect on cognition, has minimal anticholinergic effect, and may restore a natural sleep pattern. While propofol causes hypotension, respiratory depression, and deeper sedation, dexmedetomidine is associated with lighter sedation, a minimal effect on respiratory drive, and a milder hemodynamic effect. In a randomized controlled trial involving post-surgery ICU patients, dexmedetomidine partially restored a normal sleep pattern (eg, increased percentage of stage 2 non-rapid eye movement sleep), prolonged total sleep time, improved sleep efficiency, and increased sleep quality [10]; by improving overall sleep quality, dexmedetomidine potentially may prevent delirium. Another study that randomly assigned 700 ICU patients who underwent noncardiac surgery to dexmedetomidine infusion (0.1 mcg/kg/hr from ICU admission on the day of surgery until the following morning) or placebo reported a significantly reduced incidence of delirium in the dexmedetomidine group [11]. On the other hand, a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis that included 7 randomized controlled studies did not find a significant risk reduction of delirium with dexmedetomidine [12].

The current study by Skrobik et al was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial that examined the role of nocturnal dexmedetomidine in ICU delirium prevention in 100 ICU patients. Nocturnal administration of low-dose dexmedetomidine led to a statistically significant reduction in delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR of delirium, 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.82, which is similar to that suggested by previous studies). This study adds additional evidence regarding the use of dexmedetomidine for pharmacologic delirium prevention. It included many mechanically ventilated patients (89% of study population), strengthening the applicability of the result. Mechanical ventilation is a known risk factor for ICU delirium, and therefore this is an important population to study; previous trials largely included patients who were not mechanically ventilated. This study also supports the safety of dexmedetomidine infusion, especially in lower doses in critically ill patients, without significantly increasing the incidence of adverse events (mainly hypotension and bradycardia). The study protocol closely approximated real practice by allowing other analgesics, including opioids, and therefore suggests safety and real world applicability.

There are several confounding issues in this study. The study was blinded, and there was concern that the bedside nurses may have been able to identify the study drug based on the effects on heart rate. In addition, 50% of patients received antipsychotics. While baseline RASS score was significantly different between the 2 groups, patients in the dexmedetomidine group reached a deeper level of sedation during the study. Also, the protocol mandated halving the pre-existing sedative on the night of study drug initiation, which could have led to inadequate sedation in the placebo group. Placebo patients received propofol for a similar duration but at a higher dose compared to dexmedetomidine patients, and midazolam and fentanyl infusion was used in a similar pattern between the groups. The high exclusion rate (71%) limits the ability to generalize the results to all ICU patients.

Applications for Clinical Practice

ICU delirium is an important complication of critical illness and is potentially preventable. Benzodiazepines are associated with an increased risk of delirium, while there has been increasing interest in dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, because of its potential for delirium prevention. Evidence to date does not strongly support routine use of pharmacologic prevention of delirium; however, dexmedetomidine may be an option for sedation, as opposed to benzodiazepines or propofol, in selected patients and may potentially prevent delirium.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Neal Patel, MD, and Vichaya Arunthari, MD, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if an intervention directed toward early detection of pulmonary exacerbations using electronic home monitoring of spirometry and symptoms would result in slower decline in lung function.

Design. Multicenter, randomized, nonblinded 2-arm clinical trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted at 14 cystic fibrosis centers in the United States between 2011 and 2015. Cystic fibrosis patients (stable at baseline, FEV1 > 25% predicted) at least 14 years old (adolescent and adults) were included and randomized 1:1 to either an early intervention arm or usual care arm.

Intervention. The intervention arm used home-based spirometers and patient-reported respiratory symptoms using the Cystic Fibrosis Respiratory Symptoms Diary (CFRSD), which was to be completed twice weekly and collected by the central AM2 system. This AM2 system alerted sites to contact patients for an acute pulmonary exacerbation evaluation when FEV1 values fell by greater than 10% from baseline or CFRSD worsened from baseline in two or more of eight respiratory symptoms. The usual care arm patients had quarterly CF visits and/or acute visits based on their need.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome variable was the 52-week change in FEV1 volume in liters. Secondary outcome variables were changes in CFQ-R (Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire, revised), CFRSD, FEV1 % predicted, FVC in liters, FEF25-75%, time to first acute pulmonary exacerbation, time from first pulmonary exacerbation to subsequent pulmonary exacerbation, number of hospitalization days, number of hospitalizations, percent change in prevalence of Pseudomonas or Staphylococcus aureus and global assessment of protocol burden score.

Main results. A total of 267 patients were randomized. The results were analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference between study arms in 52-week mean change in FEV1 slope (mean slope difference, 0.00 L, 95% confidence interval, –0.07 to 0.07; P = 0.99). The early intervention arm subjects detected exacerbations sooner and more frequently than usual care arm subjects (time to first exacerbation hazard ratio, 1.45; 94% confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.93; P = 0.01). Adverse events were not significantly different between treatment arms.

Conclusion. An intervention of electronic home monitoring of patients with CF was able to detect more exacerbations than usual care, but this did not result in slower decline in lung function.

Commentary

Establishing efficacy and safety of home monitoring is a popular research topic in the current era of information technology. Most data to date has come from chronic adult disease such as heart failure, diabetes, or COPD [1]. While relatively rare, CF is a chronic lung disease that could potentially benefit from home monitoring. This is supported by previous evidence suggesting that up to a quarter of pulmonary exacerbations in CF patients result in worsened baseline lung function [2]. Close monitoring of symptoms and FEV1 using home monitoring was hypothesized to improve management and long-term function in this population. Indeed, in children with CF, electronic home monitoring of symptoms and lung function was able to detect pulmonary exacerbations early [3]. Frequency of monitoring is widely variable between centers, and some suggest aggressive monitoring of CF provides better clinical outcomes [4]. Current CF guidelines do not make specific recommendations regarding frequency of monitoring.

In this study, Lechtzin et al attempted to determine if the early detection of acute pulmonary exacerbations in CF patients by home monitoring and treatment would prevent progressive decline in lung function. This multicenter randomized trial was conducted at large CF centers in the US with a total cohort of 267 patients. The study had a mean follow-up time of 46.8 weeks per participant in the intervention arm and a mean follow-up time of 50.9 weeks per participant in the usual care arm. Given the predefined follow-up length (52 weeks) the primary outcome of FEV1 in liters was deemed sensitive enough to detect a decline of lung function. However the discrepancy between follow-up times with the intervention group having a 4.1-week shorter mean follow-up than the usual care could have influenced the interpretation of the results. Additionally, a large percentage of these patients were clinically stable at initial enrollment, with an average FEV1 % predicted of 79.5%. The stability of initial participants raises questions as to the efficacy of home monitoring in CF patient with moderate to severe lung disease. Mostly importantly, due to the nature of intervention the study could not be blinded, which could have substantially increased anxiety and self-awareness of patients in reporting their symptoms in the intervention arm.

Currently, an established consensus definition of pulmonary exacerbations of CF is lacking. Previous studies have proposed several different criteria of acute pulmonary exacerbations. Most proposed definitions depend on symptom changes such as cough, sputum, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue and weight-loss, making the definition less specific or objective.

The number of acute visits in the intervention arm was significantly higher than that in the usual care arm (153 vs 64). Despite a higher number of visits with intervention group, a significant number of these visits did not lead to a diagnosis of acute pulmonary exacerbation. Reportedly, 108 acute visits met protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation and 29 acute visits did not meet protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation in the intervention arm compared to 44 and 12 respectively in the usual care arm of the study. Given that the groups had similar baseline demographics and were randomized appropriately, one would expect that the number of acute visits severe enough to meet protocol-defined criteria as a pulmonary exacerbation would be similar in both groups. However, the absolute number of protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbations was far greater in the intervention group. Therefore, one could question the clinical significance of what was defined as acute pulmonary exacerbation. Potentially, the elevation of the absolute number of protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbations in the intervention group was simply due to increased surveillance. If the former were correct, one would expect the lack of identification/treatment of a significant number of pulmonary exacerbations in the usual care group would have led to a larger decline in FEV1 after 52 weeks than was seen in the results when compared to the intervention group. Given that the results of the study indicate no significant difference in change in FEV1 between study arms, perhaps the studied parameters in the intervention group were overly sensitive.

Of note, the usual care arm did have a statistically significant higher rate of hospitalizations and IV antibiotic use, suggesting that early identification of acute visits can identify patients earlier in the course of an acute pulmonary exacerbation and prevent higher level of care, though at the expense of more acute event “false positives,” or over-diagnosis. This trade-off may not result in cost saving, though this was not a consideration of this study. Additionally, there was likely difference in treatment, as treatment was not standardized, with potential implications for the validity of results.

The early intervention protocol was not only shown to lead to increased visits with no benefit in lung function decline, but as one may expect, also proved to be remarkably burdensome to many patients compared to the usual care protocol. Entering data on a weekly basis (or perhaps even monthly) was found to be burdensome in many remote-monitoring trials [5]. This may be especially apparent in a younger age group: in this study the average age of the study population was between 18 and 30 years of age. It can be hypothesized that this age group may not have enough responsibility, time, or enthusiasm to participate in home monitoring. Home monitoring maybe more effective in a disease condition where the average age is older or in a pediatric population in whom the parents oversee the care of the patient or have more time and receive subjective benefit from home monitoring services.

Less may be sufficient. The current study suggests that the home monitoring in CF may increase medical expense and unnecessary antibiotic use with no improvement in lung function. It is difficult to assess from this study the impact that the burden of home monitoring would have on clinical outcomes, however, previous meta-analysis of data studying COPD populations using home monitoring system, interestingly, also had increased health service usage and even led to increase in mortality in the intervention group compared with usual care group [1,6].

Perhaps the negative result of current study is due to the oftentimes variable definitions of and management algorithms for pulmonary exacerbations rather than the home monitoring system itself. Limited evidence exists for optimal threshold identification [7]. Aggregated, large amounts of data gathered by telemonitoring have not been proven to be used effectively. Moreover, as mentioned, a clear definition and management guidelines for pulmonary exacerbation are lacking. As a next step, studies are ongoing to evaluate how to use the collected data without increasing harm or cost. This could utilize machine learning or developing a more specific model defining and predicting pulmonary exacerbations as well as standardized indications for antibiotic therapy and hospitalization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

CF patients suffer from frequent pulmonary exacerbations and close monitoring and appropriate treatment is necessary to prevent progressive decline of lung function. This study has shown no benefit of electronic home monitoring in CF patients based on symptoms and spirometry over usual care. However, this negative outcome may be due to the limitation of the current definition of pulmonary exacerbation and lack of a consensus management algorithm. Optimizing the definition of pulmonary exacerbation and protocoling management based on severity may improve future evaluations of electronic home monitoring. Electronic home monitoring may help identify patients requiring evaluation; however, clinicians should continue to manage CF patients with conventional tools including regular follow-up visits, thorough history taking, and appropriate use of antibiotics based on their clinical acumen.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Joel Roberson, MD, Drew Willey, MD, and Neal Patel, MD (Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, except for Dr. Roberson, of Oakland University/ Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI)

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if an intervention directed toward early detection of pulmonary exacerbations using electronic home monitoring of spirometry and symptoms would result in slower decline in lung function.

Design. Multicenter, randomized, nonblinded 2-arm clinical trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted at 14 cystic fibrosis centers in the United States between 2011 and 2015. Cystic fibrosis patients (stable at baseline, FEV1 > 25% predicted) at least 14 years old (adolescent and adults) were included and randomized 1:1 to either an early intervention arm or usual care arm.

Intervention. The intervention arm used home-based spirometers and patient-reported respiratory symptoms using the Cystic Fibrosis Respiratory Symptoms Diary (CFRSD), which was to be completed twice weekly and collected by the central AM2 system. This AM2 system alerted sites to contact patients for an acute pulmonary exacerbation evaluation when FEV1 values fell by greater than 10% from baseline or CFRSD worsened from baseline in two or more of eight respiratory symptoms. The usual care arm patients had quarterly CF visits and/or acute visits based on their need.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome variable was the 52-week change in FEV1 volume in liters. Secondary outcome variables were changes in CFQ-R (Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire, revised), CFRSD, FEV1 % predicted, FVC in liters, FEF25-75%, time to first acute pulmonary exacerbation, time from first pulmonary exacerbation to subsequent pulmonary exacerbation, number of hospitalization days, number of hospitalizations, percent change in prevalence of Pseudomonas or Staphylococcus aureus and global assessment of protocol burden score.

Main results. A total of 267 patients were randomized. The results were analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference between study arms in 52-week mean change in FEV1 slope (mean slope difference, 0.00 L, 95% confidence interval, –0.07 to 0.07; P = 0.99). The early intervention arm subjects detected exacerbations sooner and more frequently than usual care arm subjects (time to first exacerbation hazard ratio, 1.45; 94% confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.93; P = 0.01). Adverse events were not significantly different between treatment arms.

Conclusion. An intervention of electronic home monitoring of patients with CF was able to detect more exacerbations than usual care, but this did not result in slower decline in lung function.

Commentary

Establishing efficacy and safety of home monitoring is a popular research topic in the current era of information technology. Most data to date has come from chronic adult disease such as heart failure, diabetes, or COPD [1]. While relatively rare, CF is a chronic lung disease that could potentially benefit from home monitoring. This is supported by previous evidence suggesting that up to a quarter of pulmonary exacerbations in CF patients result in worsened baseline lung function [2]. Close monitoring of symptoms and FEV1 using home monitoring was hypothesized to improve management and long-term function in this population. Indeed, in children with CF, electronic home monitoring of symptoms and lung function was able to detect pulmonary exacerbations early [3]. Frequency of monitoring is widely variable between centers, and some suggest aggressive monitoring of CF provides better clinical outcomes [4]. Current CF guidelines do not make specific recommendations regarding frequency of monitoring.

In this study, Lechtzin et al attempted to determine if the early detection of acute pulmonary exacerbations in CF patients by home monitoring and treatment would prevent progressive decline in lung function. This multicenter randomized trial was conducted at large CF centers in the US with a total cohort of 267 patients. The study had a mean follow-up time of 46.8 weeks per participant in the intervention arm and a mean follow-up time of 50.9 weeks per participant in the usual care arm. Given the predefined follow-up length (52 weeks) the primary outcome of FEV1 in liters was deemed sensitive enough to detect a decline of lung function. However the discrepancy between follow-up times with the intervention group having a 4.1-week shorter mean follow-up than the usual care could have influenced the interpretation of the results. Additionally, a large percentage of these patients were clinically stable at initial enrollment, with an average FEV1 % predicted of 79.5%. The stability of initial participants raises questions as to the efficacy of home monitoring in CF patient with moderate to severe lung disease. Mostly importantly, due to the nature of intervention the study could not be blinded, which could have substantially increased anxiety and self-awareness of patients in reporting their symptoms in the intervention arm.

Currently, an established consensus definition of pulmonary exacerbations of CF is lacking. Previous studies have proposed several different criteria of acute pulmonary exacerbations. Most proposed definitions depend on symptom changes such as cough, sputum, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue and weight-loss, making the definition less specific or objective.

The number of acute visits in the intervention arm was significantly higher than that in the usual care arm (153 vs 64). Despite a higher number of visits with intervention group, a significant number of these visits did not lead to a diagnosis of acute pulmonary exacerbation. Reportedly, 108 acute visits met protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation and 29 acute visits did not meet protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation in the intervention arm compared to 44 and 12 respectively in the usual care arm of the study. Given that the groups had similar baseline demographics and were randomized appropriately, one would expect that the number of acute visits severe enough to meet protocol-defined criteria as a pulmonary exacerbation would be similar in both groups. However, the absolute number of protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbations was far greater in the intervention group. Therefore, one could question the clinical significance of what was defined as acute pulmonary exacerbation. Potentially, the elevation of the absolute number of protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbations in the intervention group was simply due to increased surveillance. If the former were correct, one would expect the lack of identification/treatment of a significant number of pulmonary exacerbations in the usual care group would have led to a larger decline in FEV1 after 52 weeks than was seen in the results when compared to the intervention group. Given that the results of the study indicate no significant difference in change in FEV1 between study arms, perhaps the studied parameters in the intervention group were overly sensitive.

Of note, the usual care arm did have a statistically significant higher rate of hospitalizations and IV antibiotic use, suggesting that early identification of acute visits can identify patients earlier in the course of an acute pulmonary exacerbation and prevent higher level of care, though at the expense of more acute event “false positives,” or over-diagnosis. This trade-off may not result in cost saving, though this was not a consideration of this study. Additionally, there was likely difference in treatment, as treatment was not standardized, with potential implications for the validity of results.

The early intervention protocol was not only shown to lead to increased visits with no benefit in lung function decline, but as one may expect, also proved to be remarkably burdensome to many patients compared to the usual care protocol. Entering data on a weekly basis (or perhaps even monthly) was found to be burdensome in many remote-monitoring trials [5]. This may be especially apparent in a younger age group: in this study the average age of the study population was between 18 and 30 years of age. It can be hypothesized that this age group may not have enough responsibility, time, or enthusiasm to participate in home monitoring. Home monitoring maybe more effective in a disease condition where the average age is older or in a pediatric population in whom the parents oversee the care of the patient or have more time and receive subjective benefit from home monitoring services.

Less may be sufficient. The current study suggests that the home monitoring in CF may increase medical expense and unnecessary antibiotic use with no improvement in lung function. It is difficult to assess from this study the impact that the burden of home monitoring would have on clinical outcomes, however, previous meta-analysis of data studying COPD populations using home monitoring system, interestingly, also had increased health service usage and even led to increase in mortality in the intervention group compared with usual care group [1,6].

Perhaps the negative result of current study is due to the oftentimes variable definitions of and management algorithms for pulmonary exacerbations rather than the home monitoring system itself. Limited evidence exists for optimal threshold identification [7]. Aggregated, large amounts of data gathered by telemonitoring have not been proven to be used effectively. Moreover, as mentioned, a clear definition and management guidelines for pulmonary exacerbation are lacking. As a next step, studies are ongoing to evaluate how to use the collected data without increasing harm or cost. This could utilize machine learning or developing a more specific model defining and predicting pulmonary exacerbations as well as standardized indications for antibiotic therapy and hospitalization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

CF patients suffer from frequent pulmonary exacerbations and close monitoring and appropriate treatment is necessary to prevent progressive decline of lung function. This study has shown no benefit of electronic home monitoring in CF patients based on symptoms and spirometry over usual care. However, this negative outcome may be due to the limitation of the current definition of pulmonary exacerbation and lack of a consensus management algorithm. Optimizing the definition of pulmonary exacerbation and protocoling management based on severity may improve future evaluations of electronic home monitoring. Electronic home monitoring may help identify patients requiring evaluation; however, clinicians should continue to manage CF patients with conventional tools including regular follow-up visits, thorough history taking, and appropriate use of antibiotics based on their clinical acumen.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Joel Roberson, MD, Drew Willey, MD, and Neal Patel, MD (Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, except for Dr. Roberson, of Oakland University/ Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI)

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if an intervention directed toward early detection of pulmonary exacerbations using electronic home monitoring of spirometry and symptoms would result in slower decline in lung function.

Design. Multicenter, randomized, nonblinded 2-arm clinical trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted at 14 cystic fibrosis centers in the United States between 2011 and 2015. Cystic fibrosis patients (stable at baseline, FEV1 > 25% predicted) at least 14 years old (adolescent and adults) were included and randomized 1:1 to either an early intervention arm or usual care arm.

Intervention. The intervention arm used home-based spirometers and patient-reported respiratory symptoms using the Cystic Fibrosis Respiratory Symptoms Diary (CFRSD), which was to be completed twice weekly and collected by the central AM2 system. This AM2 system alerted sites to contact patients for an acute pulmonary exacerbation evaluation when FEV1 values fell by greater than 10% from baseline or CFRSD worsened from baseline in two or more of eight respiratory symptoms. The usual care arm patients had quarterly CF visits and/or acute visits based on their need.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome variable was the 52-week change in FEV1 volume in liters. Secondary outcome variables were changes in CFQ-R (Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire, revised), CFRSD, FEV1 % predicted, FVC in liters, FEF25-75%, time to first acute pulmonary exacerbation, time from first pulmonary exacerbation to subsequent pulmonary exacerbation, number of hospitalization days, number of hospitalizations, percent change in prevalence of Pseudomonas or Staphylococcus aureus and global assessment of protocol burden score.

Main results. A total of 267 patients were randomized. The results were analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference between study arms in 52-week mean change in FEV1 slope (mean slope difference, 0.00 L, 95% confidence interval, –0.07 to 0.07; P = 0.99). The early intervention arm subjects detected exacerbations sooner and more frequently than usual care arm subjects (time to first exacerbation hazard ratio, 1.45; 94% confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.93; P = 0.01). Adverse events were not significantly different between treatment arms.

Conclusion. An intervention of electronic home monitoring of patients with CF was able to detect more exacerbations than usual care, but this did not result in slower decline in lung function.

Commentary

Establishing efficacy and safety of home monitoring is a popular research topic in the current era of information technology. Most data to date has come from chronic adult disease such as heart failure, diabetes, or COPD [1]. While relatively rare, CF is a chronic lung disease that could potentially benefit from home monitoring. This is supported by previous evidence suggesting that up to a quarter of pulmonary exacerbations in CF patients result in worsened baseline lung function [2]. Close monitoring of symptoms and FEV1 using home monitoring was hypothesized to improve management and long-term function in this population. Indeed, in children with CF, electronic home monitoring of symptoms and lung function was able to detect pulmonary exacerbations early [3]. Frequency of monitoring is widely variable between centers, and some suggest aggressive monitoring of CF provides better clinical outcomes [4]. Current CF guidelines do not make specific recommendations regarding frequency of monitoring.

In this study, Lechtzin et al attempted to determine if the early detection of acute pulmonary exacerbations in CF patients by home monitoring and treatment would prevent progressive decline in lung function. This multicenter randomized trial was conducted at large CF centers in the US with a total cohort of 267 patients. The study had a mean follow-up time of 46.8 weeks per participant in the intervention arm and a mean follow-up time of 50.9 weeks per participant in the usual care arm. Given the predefined follow-up length (52 weeks) the primary outcome of FEV1 in liters was deemed sensitive enough to detect a decline of lung function. However the discrepancy between follow-up times with the intervention group having a 4.1-week shorter mean follow-up than the usual care could have influenced the interpretation of the results. Additionally, a large percentage of these patients were clinically stable at initial enrollment, with an average FEV1 % predicted of 79.5%. The stability of initial participants raises questions as to the efficacy of home monitoring in CF patient with moderate to severe lung disease. Mostly importantly, due to the nature of intervention the study could not be blinded, which could have substantially increased anxiety and self-awareness of patients in reporting their symptoms in the intervention arm.

Currently, an established consensus definition of pulmonary exacerbations of CF is lacking. Previous studies have proposed several different criteria of acute pulmonary exacerbations. Most proposed definitions depend on symptom changes such as cough, sputum, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue and weight-loss, making the definition less specific or objective.

The number of acute visits in the intervention arm was significantly higher than that in the usual care arm (153 vs 64). Despite a higher number of visits with intervention group, a significant number of these visits did not lead to a diagnosis of acute pulmonary exacerbation. Reportedly, 108 acute visits met protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation and 29 acute visits did not meet protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation in the intervention arm compared to 44 and 12 respectively in the usual care arm of the study. Given that the groups had similar baseline demographics and were randomized appropriately, one would expect that the number of acute visits severe enough to meet protocol-defined criteria as a pulmonary exacerbation would be similar in both groups. However, the absolute number of protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbations was far greater in the intervention group. Therefore, one could question the clinical significance of what was defined as acute pulmonary exacerbation. Potentially, the elevation of the absolute number of protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbations in the intervention group was simply due to increased surveillance. If the former were correct, one would expect the lack of identification/treatment of a significant number of pulmonary exacerbations in the usual care group would have led to a larger decline in FEV1 after 52 weeks than was seen in the results when compared to the intervention group. Given that the results of the study indicate no significant difference in change in FEV1 between study arms, perhaps the studied parameters in the intervention group were overly sensitive.

Of note, the usual care arm did have a statistically significant higher rate of hospitalizations and IV antibiotic use, suggesting that early identification of acute visits can identify patients earlier in the course of an acute pulmonary exacerbation and prevent higher level of care, though at the expense of more acute event “false positives,” or over-diagnosis. This trade-off may not result in cost saving, though this was not a consideration of this study. Additionally, there was likely difference in treatment, as treatment was not standardized, with potential implications for the validity of results.

The early intervention protocol was not only shown to lead to increased visits with no benefit in lung function decline, but as one may expect, also proved to be remarkably burdensome to many patients compared to the usual care protocol. Entering data on a weekly basis (or perhaps even monthly) was found to be burdensome in many remote-monitoring trials [5]. This may be especially apparent in a younger age group: in this study the average age of the study population was between 18 and 30 years of age. It can be hypothesized that this age group may not have enough responsibility, time, or enthusiasm to participate in home monitoring. Home monitoring maybe more effective in a disease condition where the average age is older or in a pediatric population in whom the parents oversee the care of the patient or have more time and receive subjective benefit from home monitoring services.

Less may be sufficient. The current study suggests that the home monitoring in CF may increase medical expense and unnecessary antibiotic use with no improvement in lung function. It is difficult to assess from this study the impact that the burden of home monitoring would have on clinical outcomes, however, previous meta-analysis of data studying COPD populations using home monitoring system, interestingly, also had increased health service usage and even led to increase in mortality in the intervention group compared with usual care group [1,6].

Perhaps the negative result of current study is due to the oftentimes variable definitions of and management algorithms for pulmonary exacerbations rather than the home monitoring system itself. Limited evidence exists for optimal threshold identification [7]. Aggregated, large amounts of data gathered by telemonitoring have not been proven to be used effectively. Moreover, as mentioned, a clear definition and management guidelines for pulmonary exacerbation are lacking. As a next step, studies are ongoing to evaluate how to use the collected data without increasing harm or cost. This could utilize machine learning or developing a more specific model defining and predicting pulmonary exacerbations as well as standardized indications for antibiotic therapy and hospitalization.

Applications for Clinical Practice

CF patients suffer from frequent pulmonary exacerbations and close monitoring and appropriate treatment is necessary to prevent progressive decline of lung function. This study has shown no benefit of electronic home monitoring in CF patients based on symptoms and spirometry over usual care. However, this negative outcome may be due to the limitation of the current definition of pulmonary exacerbation and lack of a consensus management algorithm. Optimizing the definition of pulmonary exacerbation and protocoling management based on severity may improve future evaluations of electronic home monitoring. Electronic home monitoring may help identify patients requiring evaluation; however, clinicians should continue to manage CF patients with conventional tools including regular follow-up visits, thorough history taking, and appropriate use of antibiotics based on their clinical acumen.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Joel Roberson, MD, Drew Willey, MD, and Neal Patel, MD (Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, except for Dr. Roberson, of Oakland University/ Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI)

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of asthma treatment using fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol in a setting that is closer to usual clinical practice.

Design. Open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted at 74 general practice clinics in Salford and South Manchester, UK, between Nov 2012 and Dec 2016. Patients with a general practitioner’s diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy (either inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] alone or in combination with a long-acting bronchodilator [LABA]) were recruited. Patients with recent history of life-threatening asthma, COPD, or concomitant life-threatening disease were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned through a centralized randomization service and stratified by Asthma Control Test (ACT) score and by previous asthma maintenance therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA). Only those with an ACT score < 20 were included in the study.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to receive either a combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) delivered by novel dry powder inhalation (DPI) (Ellipta) or to continue with their maintenance therapy. General practitioners provided care in their usual manner and could continuously optimize therapy according to their clinical opinion. Treatments were dispensed by community pharmacies in the usual way. Patients could modify their treatment and remain in the study. Those in the FF/VI group were allowed to change to other asthma medications and could stop taking FF/VI. Those in the usual care group were also allowed to alter medications, but could not initiate FF/VI.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was ACT score at week 24 (the percentage of patients at week 24 with either an ACT score of 20 or greater or an increase of 3 or greater in the ACT score from baseline, termed responders). Safety endpoints included the incidence of serious pneumonias. The study utilized the Salford electronic medical record system, which allows near to real-time collection and monitoring of safety data. Secondary endpoints included ACT at various weeks, all asthma-related primary and secondary care contacts, annual rate of severe exacerbations, number of salbutamol inhalers dispensed, and time to modification or initial therapy.

Main results. 4233 patients were randomized, with 2119 patients randomized to usual care and 2114 randomized to the FF/VI group. 605 from the usual care group and 602 from the FF/VI group had a baseline ACT score greater than or equal to 20 and were thus excluded from the primary effectiveness analysis population. 306 in the usual care group and 342 in the FF/VI group withdrew for various reasons, including adverse events, or were lost to follow-up or protocol deviations. Mean patient age was 50 years. Within the usual care group, 64% of patients received ICS/LABA combination and 36% received ICS only. Within the FF/VI group, 65% were prescribed 100 μg/25 μg FFI/VI and 35% were prescribed 200 μg/25 μg FF/VI. At week 24, the FF/VI group had 74% responders whereas the usual care group had 60% responders; the odds of being a responder with FF/VI was twice that of being a responder with usual care (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.71–2.26, P < 0.001). Patients in the FF/VI group had a slightly higher incidence of pneumonia than did the usual care group (23 vs 16; incidence ratio 1.4, 95% CI 0.8–2.7). Also, those in the FF/VI group had an increase in the rate of primary care visits/contacts per year (9.7% increase, 95% CI 4.6%–15.0%).

Conclusion. In patients with a general practitioner’s diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy, initiation of a once-daily treatment regimen of combined FF/VI improved asthma control without increasing the risk of serious adverse events when compared with optimized usual care.

Commentary

Woodcock et al conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled study. This innovative research method prospectively enrolled a large number of patients who were randomized to groups that could involve 1 or more interventions and who were then followed according to the treating physician’s usual practice. The patients’ experience was kept as close to everyday clinical practice care as possible to preserve the real-world nature of the study. The positive aspect of this innovative pragmatic research design is the inclusion of patients with varied disease severity and with comorbidities that are not well represented in conventional double-blind randomized controlled trials, such as patients with smoking history, obesity, or multiple comorbidities. In addition, an electronic health record system was used to track serious adverse events in near real-time and increased the accuracy of the data and minimized data loss.

While the pragmatic study design offers innovation, it also has some limitations. Effectiveness studies using a pragmatic approach are less controlled compared with traditional efficacy RCTs and are more prone to low medication compliance and high rates of follow-up loss. Further, Woodcock et al allowed patients to remain in the FF/VI group even though they may have stopped taking FF/VI. Indeed, in the FF/VI group, 463 (22%) of the 2114 patients changed their medication, and 381 (18%) switched to the usual care group. Patients were analyzed using intention to treat and thus were analyzed in the group to which they were initially randomized. This could have affected results, as a good proportion of patients in the FF/VI group were not actually taking the FF/VI. Within the usual care group, 376 (18%) of 2119 patients altered their medication and 3 (< 1%) switched to FF/VI, though this was prohibited. In routine care, adherence rates are expected to be low (20%–40%) and this is another possible weakness of the study; in closely monitored RCTs, adherence rates are around 80%–90%.

The authors did not include objective measures of the severity or types of asthma, which can be obtained using pulmonary function tests, eosinophil count, or other markers of inflammation. By identifying asthma patients via the general practitioner’s diagnosis, the study is more reflective of real life and primary care–driven; however, one cannot rule out accidental inclusion of patients who do not have asthma (which could include patients with post-infectious cough, vocal cord dysfunction, or anxiety) or patients who would not readily respond to typical asthma therapy (such as those with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangitis). In addition, the authors used only subjective measures to define control: ACT score by telephone. Other outcome measures included exacerbation rate, primary care physician visits, and time to exacerbation, which may be insensitive to detecting residual inflammation or severity of asthma. In lieu of objectively measuring the degree of airway obstruction or inflammation, the outcomes measured by the authors may not have comprehensively evaluated efficacy.

The open-label, intention-to-treat, and pragmatic design of the study may have generated major selection bias, despite the randomization. Because general practitioners who directly participated in the recruitment of the patients also monitored their treatment, volunteer or referral bias may have occurred. As the authors admitted, there were differences present in practice and treatment due to variation of training and education of the general practitioners. In addition, the current study was funded by a pharmaceutical company and the trial medication was dispensed free of cost, further generating bias.

Further consideration of the study medication also brings up questions about the study design. Combined therapy with low- to moderate-dose ICS/LABA is currently indicated for asthma patients with moderate persistent or higher severity asthma. The current US insurance system encourages management to begin with low-dose ICS before escalating to a combination of ICS/LABA. Given the previously published evidence of superiority for combined ICS/LABA over ICS alone on asthma control [2,3], inclusion criteria could have been limited only to patients who were already receiving ICS/LABA to more accurately equate the trial medication with the accepted standard medications. By including patients who were on ICS/LABA as well as those only on ICS (in usual care group, 64% were on ICS/LABA and 36% were on ICS) the likelihood of responders in the FF/VI group could have been inflated compared to usual care group. In addition, patients with a low severity of asthma symptoms, such as only intermittent asthma or mild persistent asthma, could have been overtreated by FF/VI per current guidelines. About 30% of the patients initially enrolled in the study had baseline ACT scores greater than 20, and some patients had less severe asthma as indicated by the treatment with ICS alone. The authors also included 2 different doses of fluticasone furoate in their study group.

It is of concern that the incidence of pneumonia with ICS/LABA in this study was slightly higher in the FF/VI than in the usual care group. Although it was not statistically significant in this study, the increased pneumonia risk with ICS has been observed in many other studies [4,5].

Applications for Clinical Practice

Fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol (FF/VI) can be a therapeutic option in patients with asthma, with a small increased risk for pneumonia that is similar to other types of inhaled corticosteroids. However, a stepwise therapeutic approach, following the published asthma treatment strategy [6], should be emphasized when escalating treatment to include FF/VI.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Joel Roberson, MD, and Neal Patel, MD, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL (Drs. Kwon and Patel), and Department of Radiology, Oakland University/Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI (Dr. Roberson)

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of asthma treatment using fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol in a setting that is closer to usual clinical practice.

Design. Open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted at 74 general practice clinics in Salford and South Manchester, UK, between Nov 2012 and Dec 2016. Patients with a general practitioner’s diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy (either inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] alone or in combination with a long-acting bronchodilator [LABA]) were recruited. Patients with recent history of life-threatening asthma, COPD, or concomitant life-threatening disease were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned through a centralized randomization service and stratified by Asthma Control Test (ACT) score and by previous asthma maintenance therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA). Only those with an ACT score < 20 were included in the study.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to receive either a combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) delivered by novel dry powder inhalation (DPI) (Ellipta) or to continue with their maintenance therapy. General practitioners provided care in their usual manner and could continuously optimize therapy according to their clinical opinion. Treatments were dispensed by community pharmacies in the usual way. Patients could modify their treatment and remain in the study. Those in the FF/VI group were allowed to change to other asthma medications and could stop taking FF/VI. Those in the usual care group were also allowed to alter medications, but could not initiate FF/VI.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was ACT score at week 24 (the percentage of patients at week 24 with either an ACT score of 20 or greater or an increase of 3 or greater in the ACT score from baseline, termed responders). Safety endpoints included the incidence of serious pneumonias. The study utilized the Salford electronic medical record system, which allows near to real-time collection and monitoring of safety data. Secondary endpoints included ACT at various weeks, all asthma-related primary and secondary care contacts, annual rate of severe exacerbations, number of salbutamol inhalers dispensed, and time to modification or initial therapy.

Main results. 4233 patients were randomized, with 2119 patients randomized to usual care and 2114 randomized to the FF/VI group. 605 from the usual care group and 602 from the FF/VI group had a baseline ACT score greater than or equal to 20 and were thus excluded from the primary effectiveness analysis population. 306 in the usual care group and 342 in the FF/VI group withdrew for various reasons, including adverse events, or were lost to follow-up or protocol deviations. Mean patient age was 50 years. Within the usual care group, 64% of patients received ICS/LABA combination and 36% received ICS only. Within the FF/VI group, 65% were prescribed 100 μg/25 μg FFI/VI and 35% were prescribed 200 μg/25 μg FF/VI. At week 24, the FF/VI group had 74% responders whereas the usual care group had 60% responders; the odds of being a responder with FF/VI was twice that of being a responder with usual care (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.71–2.26, P < 0.001). Patients in the FF/VI group had a slightly higher incidence of pneumonia than did the usual care group (23 vs 16; incidence ratio 1.4, 95% CI 0.8–2.7). Also, those in the FF/VI group had an increase in the rate of primary care visits/contacts per year (9.7% increase, 95% CI 4.6%–15.0%).

Conclusion. In patients with a general practitioner’s diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy, initiation of a once-daily treatment regimen of combined FF/VI improved asthma control without increasing the risk of serious adverse events when compared with optimized usual care.

Commentary

Woodcock et al conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled study. This innovative research method prospectively enrolled a large number of patients who were randomized to groups that could involve 1 or more interventions and who were then followed according to the treating physician’s usual practice. The patients’ experience was kept as close to everyday clinical practice care as possible to preserve the real-world nature of the study. The positive aspect of this innovative pragmatic research design is the inclusion of patients with varied disease severity and with comorbidities that are not well represented in conventional double-blind randomized controlled trials, such as patients with smoking history, obesity, or multiple comorbidities. In addition, an electronic health record system was used to track serious adverse events in near real-time and increased the accuracy of the data and minimized data loss.

While the pragmatic study design offers innovation, it also has some limitations. Effectiveness studies using a pragmatic approach are less controlled compared with traditional efficacy RCTs and are more prone to low medication compliance and high rates of follow-up loss. Further, Woodcock et al allowed patients to remain in the FF/VI group even though they may have stopped taking FF/VI. Indeed, in the FF/VI group, 463 (22%) of the 2114 patients changed their medication, and 381 (18%) switched to the usual care group. Patients were analyzed using intention to treat and thus were analyzed in the group to which they were initially randomized. This could have affected results, as a good proportion of patients in the FF/VI group were not actually taking the FF/VI. Within the usual care group, 376 (18%) of 2119 patients altered their medication and 3 (< 1%) switched to FF/VI, though this was prohibited. In routine care, adherence rates are expected to be low (20%–40%) and this is another possible weakness of the study; in closely monitored RCTs, adherence rates are around 80%–90%.

The authors did not include objective measures of the severity or types of asthma, which can be obtained using pulmonary function tests, eosinophil count, or other markers of inflammation. By identifying asthma patients via the general practitioner’s diagnosis, the study is more reflective of real life and primary care–driven; however, one cannot rule out accidental inclusion of patients who do not have asthma (which could include patients with post-infectious cough, vocal cord dysfunction, or anxiety) or patients who would not readily respond to typical asthma therapy (such as those with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangitis). In addition, the authors used only subjective measures to define control: ACT score by telephone. Other outcome measures included exacerbation rate, primary care physician visits, and time to exacerbation, which may be insensitive to detecting residual inflammation or severity of asthma. In lieu of objectively measuring the degree of airway obstruction or inflammation, the outcomes measured by the authors may not have comprehensively evaluated efficacy.

The open-label, intention-to-treat, and pragmatic design of the study may have generated major selection bias, despite the randomization. Because general practitioners who directly participated in the recruitment of the patients also monitored their treatment, volunteer or referral bias may have occurred. As the authors admitted, there were differences present in practice and treatment due to variation of training and education of the general practitioners. In addition, the current study was funded by a pharmaceutical company and the trial medication was dispensed free of cost, further generating bias.

Further consideration of the study medication also brings up questions about the study design. Combined therapy with low- to moderate-dose ICS/LABA is currently indicated for asthma patients with moderate persistent or higher severity asthma. The current US insurance system encourages management to begin with low-dose ICS before escalating to a combination of ICS/LABA. Given the previously published evidence of superiority for combined ICS/LABA over ICS alone on asthma control [2,3], inclusion criteria could have been limited only to patients who were already receiving ICS/LABA to more accurately equate the trial medication with the accepted standard medications. By including patients who were on ICS/LABA as well as those only on ICS (in usual care group, 64% were on ICS/LABA and 36% were on ICS) the likelihood of responders in the FF/VI group could have been inflated compared to usual care group. In addition, patients with a low severity of asthma symptoms, such as only intermittent asthma or mild persistent asthma, could have been overtreated by FF/VI per current guidelines. About 30% of the patients initially enrolled in the study had baseline ACT scores greater than 20, and some patients had less severe asthma as indicated by the treatment with ICS alone. The authors also included 2 different doses of fluticasone furoate in their study group.

It is of concern that the incidence of pneumonia with ICS/LABA in this study was slightly higher in the FF/VI than in the usual care group. Although it was not statistically significant in this study, the increased pneumonia risk with ICS has been observed in many other studies [4,5].

Applications for Clinical Practice

Fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol (FF/VI) can be a therapeutic option in patients with asthma, with a small increased risk for pneumonia that is similar to other types of inhaled corticosteroids. However, a stepwise therapeutic approach, following the published asthma treatment strategy [6], should be emphasized when escalating treatment to include FF/VI.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Joel Roberson, MD, and Neal Patel, MD, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL (Drs. Kwon and Patel), and Department of Radiology, Oakland University/Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI (Dr. Roberson)

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of asthma treatment using fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol in a setting that is closer to usual clinical practice.

Design. Open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted at 74 general practice clinics in Salford and South Manchester, UK, between Nov 2012 and Dec 2016. Patients with a general practitioner’s diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy (either inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] alone or in combination with a long-acting bronchodilator [LABA]) were recruited. Patients with recent history of life-threatening asthma, COPD, or concomitant life-threatening disease were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned through a centralized randomization service and stratified by Asthma Control Test (ACT) score and by previous asthma maintenance therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA). Only those with an ACT score < 20 were included in the study.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to receive either a combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) delivered by novel dry powder inhalation (DPI) (Ellipta) or to continue with their maintenance therapy. General practitioners provided care in their usual manner and could continuously optimize therapy according to their clinical opinion. Treatments were dispensed by community pharmacies in the usual way. Patients could modify their treatment and remain in the study. Those in the FF/VI group were allowed to change to other asthma medications and could stop taking FF/VI. Those in the usual care group were also allowed to alter medications, but could not initiate FF/VI.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was ACT score at week 24 (the percentage of patients at week 24 with either an ACT score of 20 or greater or an increase of 3 or greater in the ACT score from baseline, termed responders). Safety endpoints included the incidence of serious pneumonias. The study utilized the Salford electronic medical record system, which allows near to real-time collection and monitoring of safety data. Secondary endpoints included ACT at various weeks, all asthma-related primary and secondary care contacts, annual rate of severe exacerbations, number of salbutamol inhalers dispensed, and time to modification or initial therapy.

Main results. 4233 patients were randomized, with 2119 patients randomized to usual care and 2114 randomized to the FF/VI group. 605 from the usual care group and 602 from the FF/VI group had a baseline ACT score greater than or equal to 20 and were thus excluded from the primary effectiveness analysis population. 306 in the usual care group and 342 in the FF/VI group withdrew for various reasons, including adverse events, or were lost to follow-up or protocol deviations. Mean patient age was 50 years. Within the usual care group, 64% of patients received ICS/LABA combination and 36% received ICS only. Within the FF/VI group, 65% were prescribed 100 μg/25 μg FFI/VI and 35% were prescribed 200 μg/25 μg FF/VI. At week 24, the FF/VI group had 74% responders whereas the usual care group had 60% responders; the odds of being a responder with FF/VI was twice that of being a responder with usual care (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.71–2.26, P < 0.001). Patients in the FF/VI group had a slightly higher incidence of pneumonia than did the usual care group (23 vs 16; incidence ratio 1.4, 95% CI 0.8–2.7). Also, those in the FF/VI group had an increase in the rate of primary care visits/contacts per year (9.7% increase, 95% CI 4.6%–15.0%).

Conclusion. In patients with a general practitioner’s diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy, initiation of a once-daily treatment regimen of combined FF/VI improved asthma control without increasing the risk of serious adverse events when compared with optimized usual care.

Commentary

Woodcock et al conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled study. This innovative research method prospectively enrolled a large number of patients who were randomized to groups that could involve 1 or more interventions and who were then followed according to the treating physician’s usual practice. The patients’ experience was kept as close to everyday clinical practice care as possible to preserve the real-world nature of the study. The positive aspect of this innovative pragmatic research design is the inclusion of patients with varied disease severity and with comorbidities that are not well represented in conventional double-blind randomized controlled trials, such as patients with smoking history, obesity, or multiple comorbidities. In addition, an electronic health record system was used to track serious adverse events in near real-time and increased the accuracy of the data and minimized data loss.

While the pragmatic study design offers innovation, it also has some limitations. Effectiveness studies using a pragmatic approach are less controlled compared with traditional efficacy RCTs and are more prone to low medication compliance and high rates of follow-up loss. Further, Woodcock et al allowed patients to remain in the FF/VI group even though they may have stopped taking FF/VI. Indeed, in the FF/VI group, 463 (22%) of the 2114 patients changed their medication, and 381 (18%) switched to the usual care group. Patients were analyzed using intention to treat and thus were analyzed in the group to which they were initially randomized. This could have affected results, as a good proportion of patients in the FF/VI group were not actually taking the FF/VI. Within the usual care group, 376 (18%) of 2119 patients altered their medication and 3 (< 1%) switched to FF/VI, though this was prohibited. In routine care, adherence rates are expected to be low (20%–40%) and this is another possible weakness of the study; in closely monitored RCTs, adherence rates are around 80%–90%.

The authors did not include objective measures of the severity or types of asthma, which can be obtained using pulmonary function tests, eosinophil count, or other markers of inflammation. By identifying asthma patients via the general practitioner’s diagnosis, the study is more reflective of real life and primary care–driven; however, one cannot rule out accidental inclusion of patients who do not have asthma (which could include patients with post-infectious cough, vocal cord dysfunction, or anxiety) or patients who would not readily respond to typical asthma therapy (such as those with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangitis). In addition, the authors used only subjective measures to define control: ACT score by telephone. Other outcome measures included exacerbation rate, primary care physician visits, and time to exacerbation, which may be insensitive to detecting residual inflammation or severity of asthma. In lieu of objectively measuring the degree of airway obstruction or inflammation, the outcomes measured by the authors may not have comprehensively evaluated efficacy.

The open-label, intention-to-treat, and pragmatic design of the study may have generated major selection bias, despite the randomization. Because general practitioners who directly participated in the recruitment of the patients also monitored their treatment, volunteer or referral bias may have occurred. As the authors admitted, there were differences present in practice and treatment due to variation of training and education of the general practitioners. In addition, the current study was funded by a pharmaceutical company and the trial medication was dispensed free of cost, further generating bias.

Further consideration of the study medication also brings up questions about the study design. Combined therapy with low- to moderate-dose ICS/LABA is currently indicated for asthma patients with moderate persistent or higher severity asthma. The current US insurance system encourages management to begin with low-dose ICS before escalating to a combination of ICS/LABA. Given the previously published evidence of superiority for combined ICS/LABA over ICS alone on asthma control [2,3], inclusion criteria could have been limited only to patients who were already receiving ICS/LABA to more accurately equate the trial medication with the accepted standard medications. By including patients who were on ICS/LABA as well as those only on ICS (in usual care group, 64% were on ICS/LABA and 36% were on ICS) the likelihood of responders in the FF/VI group could have been inflated compared to usual care group. In addition, patients with a low severity of asthma symptoms, such as only intermittent asthma or mild persistent asthma, could have been overtreated by FF/VI per current guidelines. About 30% of the patients initially enrolled in the study had baseline ACT scores greater than 20, and some patients had less severe asthma as indicated by the treatment with ICS alone. The authors also included 2 different doses of fluticasone furoate in their study group.

It is of concern that the incidence of pneumonia with ICS/LABA in this study was slightly higher in the FF/VI than in the usual care group. Although it was not statistically significant in this study, the increased pneumonia risk with ICS has been observed in many other studies [4,5].

Applications for Clinical Practice

Fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol (FF/VI) can be a therapeutic option in patients with asthma, with a small increased risk for pneumonia that is similar to other types of inhaled corticosteroids. However, a stepwise therapeutic approach, following the published asthma treatment strategy [6], should be emphasized when escalating treatment to include FF/VI.

—Minkyung Kwon, MD, Joel Roberson, MD, and Neal Patel, MD, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL (Drs. Kwon and Patel), and Department of Radiology, Oakland University/Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI (Dr. Roberson)