Addressing ethnic disparity in asthma trials

N. Radhakrishna,M. Hew

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.12338

2014-08-01

Abstract:Ethnic minorities experience poorer asthma outcomes. In Australia for example, there is a higher prevalence of asthma among Indigenous Australians when compared with other Australians. These Indigenous Australians with asthma have twice the rate of asthma hospitalizations. Indeed, asthma is the second most common reason for hospital admission among Indigenous Australians. Disturbingly, they also have three times the relative risk of asthma death. These ethnic disparities are not unique to Australia. Asthmatic individuals from other ethnic minorities such as African Americans and Maori in New Zealand face similar heightened risks. Such disparities are driven by a complex range of factors. This is best documented in the African American population, where first, African genetic ancestry amplifies the likelihood of developing asthma and influences the expression of disease phenotype. Second, physiology is different; African American patients perceive breathlessness less well, potentially masking the onset of asthma exacerbations. Third, lower socioeconomic status hinders health-care access. Fourth, social–environmental interactions impede medication adherence and compound obesity and smoking rates. Lastly, physician attitudes toward African American patients are worryingly negative, leading to qualitatively different medical consultations. Other ethnic minorities have not been as well studied as African Americans; however, existing data suggest many of these issues also apply to them. The factors discussed above combine to undermine effective asthma treatment. Recommended asthma action plans demand that a patient undertake a precise series of steps; early symptom recognition, adherence to agreed escalation and timely healthcare access. Yet these are the very issues where disadvantaged minorities struggle most. Medication efficacy may also vary across ethnic groups. Again, in African American asthma patients, in vitro responses to corticosteroids were diminished in T cells, findings that often reflect clinical steroid insensitivity. In a different study however, clinical responses of African Americans to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) were preserved. More disquieting is evidence that African Americans fail treatment more frequently with long-acting beta-agonists, irrespective of concurrent ICS use. Underlying mechanisms for this remain unclear. Although betaadrenergic receptor polymorphisms do not seem to be responsible, other genetic variations may play a role. There is thus a tremendous potential for heterogeneity of asthma treatment effects in ethnic minorities. This makes their recruitment into mainstream trials a high priority, where they have traditionally been under-represented. A recent systematic review highlighted common barriers to study recruitment across four ethnic minorities. It also identified valuable facilitators to boost recruitment such as cultural congruence, community altruism and participant convenience. Even when substantial numbers of an ethnic minority are successfully recruited into asthma trials, a final challenge remains. Such trials are invariably powered to only detect a signal within the total cohort. Thus, subgroup analysis of ethnic groupspecific data is fraught with risks of type I (falsepositive) and type II (false-negative) error. Limiting the number of predefined analyses can reduce type I error. Ways of limiting type II error in this context will be discussed at the end of this article. In this issue of Respirology, Pilcher et al. report an important ethnic subgroup analysis of a large multicentre asthma trial. The parent study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial, comparing combination budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever therapy versus fixed-dose combination budesonide/formoterol plus as needed salbutamol, in individuals with poorly controlled asthma. One of the study’s strengths was the dispensing of metred dose inhalers with electronic monitoring, allowing accurate assessment of participants’ medication use. The study’s primary outcome was negative in that the frequency of at least one high-use episode of betaagonists was no different in the two arms. Secondary outcomes however were positive, with fewer days of high use of beta-agonists, and fewer severe asthma exacerbations in the budesonide/formoterol combination maintenance and reliever arm. Within this larger dataset, Pilcher et al. focus on the response of Maori patients. Three points are worthy of note. First, the authors should be congratulated for ethnic recruitment proportional to the New Zealand population. They enrolled 44 Maori out of the total 303 participants through culturally appropriate strategies. Second, their baseline data make sobering reading. Maori participants had worse symptom control, more prior hospitalizations, lower lung Conflict of interest: M.H. has received an unrestricted educational grant from Novartis, and sponsorship from Astra Zeneca in conducting an ultrasound course. bs_bs_banner