In recent years, there has been growing interest in studying asthma treatment escalation patterns in the real-world setting, particularly with the advent of expensive biologic therapies. Healthcare administrative claims databases can be used to study treatment escalation patterns at a population-level; however, the reported definitions for claims-based asthma treatment escalation are highly variable in the literature.

The aim of this study was to develop an operational definition of treatment escalation in adults with asthma that can be applied to healthcare administrative data.

A mixed-methods research design incorporating the Delphi process was used to establish an expert consensus for this definition. A multi-disciplinary expert panel participated in three iterative rounds of online questionnaires covering treatment escalation criteria inspired by a systematic review, which was conducted as part of this study. The final definition was constructed using criteria for which a 75% level of agreement was achieved among the experts.

We developed a claims-based treatment escalation definition that was adapted from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy. The definition comprised seven treatment steps, as well as escalation options for treatments that are not typically included in clinical guidelines. The definition also incorporated methods to identify treatments in severe asthma, such as oral corticosteroid maintenance therapy and chronic azithromycin use.

The operational definition of treatment escalation developed in this study bridges the gap between clinical guidelines and real-world clinical practice and lays the groundwork for future observational studies on treatment escalation patterns among patients with asthma.