Poorly Controlled Asthma Despite ICS-LABA: Optimizing Before Stepping Up
A 44-year-old man with a 12-year history of asthma attends for review. He is a never-smoker and works as a school administrator. Over the past 6 months he has had daytime symptoms on 4 days per week, night waking 3 nights per week, and one urgent-care visit; his Asthma Control Test score is 14/25. He uses a fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg inhaler one inhalation twice daily and salbutamol two to four times weekly. Observation shows poor coordination with the MDI and no spacer; he admits stopping the controller when he feels well. Spirometry: pre-bronchodilator FEV1 64% predicted, FVC 88%, FEV1/FVC 0.61; post-bronchodilator FEV1 72%, FVC 90%, FEV1/FVC 0.58, with a 280 mL and 12% increase. FeNO is 58 ppb and blood eosinophils are 520 cells/µL. He also has untreated allergic rhinitis. There is no history of intubation or ICU admission.
1. How do you interpret the spirometry and biomarkers, and what should be done before any pharmacological step-up?
Read the worked answer
The pre-bronchodilator ratio of 0.61 and post-bronchodilator ratio of 0.58 confirm persistent airflow obstruction. The post-bronchodilator FEV1 of 72% predicted indicates mild obstruction at this visit, but the 280 mL and 12% improvement meets the usual significant-reversibility criterion and supports asthma. Reversibility does not exclude a fixed component, and a single set of numbers should not be used to escalate treatment without checking the clinical pattern.
FeNO 58 ppb and blood eosinophils 520 cells/µL indicate type 2 inflammation. The ACT of 14/25, night waking three nights per week, and recent urgent care show uncontrolled asthma. However, the history reveals two major reasons for apparent treatment failure: he stops the controller when well and uses the MDI without a spacer with poor coordination. These must be corrected before labeling the disease refractory.
Before step-up: confirm adherence with a non-judgmental review and refill history; teach and demonstrate inhaler technique with a spacer; treat allergic rhinitis; review triggers, smoking and occupational exposure; check vaccination status; consider OSA or GERD if symptoms persist; and provide a written action plan. Do not start a biologic at this stage. The expected response to optimization should be assessed over a defined period, usually 2–3 months, with repeat symptom scores and preferably spirometry.
2. After 3 months of optimized technique, adherence and rhinitis treatment, his ACT is 15, he still wakes twice weekly, FeNO is 62 ppb and eosinophils are 480 cells/µL. What step-up options are reasonable, and what determines eligibility for a biologic?
Read the worked answer
He remains uncontrolled despite corrected adherence and technique, so pharmacological escalation is justified. Reasonable options include adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist such as tiotropium, or increasing the inhaled corticosteroid dose if the current ICS dose is not already high. The choice should account for exacerbation history, side-effect risk, cost and patient preference. Continuing to rely on frequent salbutamol is not acceptable.
Before a biologic, confirm the phenotype and exclude mimics. Check total IgE and specific aeroallergen sensitization, repeat eosinophils, document exacerbations in the past year, and review adherence again. For anti-IgE therapy, sensitization to a relevant perennial aeroallergen and an appropriate total IgE are needed. For anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5 receptor therapy, an eosinophilic phenotype with elevated blood eosinophils and a history of exacerbations is typical. For anti-IL-4 receptor therapy, eosinophils or FeNO can support eligibility, and tezepelumab is an option across phenotypes but local criteria vary. The key judgement is that a biologic is not chosen from a single FeNO value; it requires uncontrolled disease despite optimized high-dose controller therapy, a compatible phenotype, and attention to cost and monitoring.