Profile of difficult to treat asthma patients referred for systematic assessment.

AIM: We determined the proportion of asthma patients under specialist care who remain difficult-to-treat and might benefit from systematic assessment. We additionally report the characteristics and indications for referral in 90 patients who received systematic assessment for difficult asthma. METHODS: We conducted a three-month prospective audit of our hospital's general asthma clinic. We then analyzed consecutive patients over 18 months referred on for systematic assessment of difficult asthma. RESULTS: Over 3 months, 22/166 patients (13.3%) in the general asthma clinic were considered likely to benefit from systematic assessment of difficult asthma. These patients had higher inhaled steroid requirements (890 ± 604 mg), lower lung function (FEV1: 65 ± 18%), and more often received GINA step 5 treatment (22.7%). However, 7/22 (32%) of suitable patients were not referred for assessment, mainly due to patient factors. Over 18 months, 90 patients received systematic assessment for difficult asthma, on account of poor symptom control (62%), frequent exacerbations (44%), poor lung function (42%), patient factors (29%), and diagnostic uncertainty (26%). There was a high disease burden with a mean (±SD) asthma control test score and asthma quality of life questionnaire score of 14 ± 5 and 4.26 ± 1.45 respectively. 80% fulfilled criteria for severe asthma. The majority were either atopic (66.7%) or eosinophilic (54.4%); only 15.6% were neither. Patients had a median of three extra-pulmonary comorbidities, of which most were previously unrecognised. CONCLUSION: One-in-eight asthma patients already under specialist care were suitable for systematic assessment of difficult asthma, but a third of these were not referred due to patient factors. Diagnostic uncertainty and patient factors were important indications for systematic assessment. Most patients who underwent systematic assessment exhibited severe asthma phenotypes potentially responsive to targeted treatment, but also had multiple comorbidities. Our results highlight the importance of management strategies to address patient factors, severe asthma biology, and concurrent contributory conditions.

Prevalence of depression in patients referred with snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Depression and obstructive sleep apnoea are two common entities, with common symptoms that make identification of either condition difficult. Our aim was to examine, within a group of patients referred with snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea, (i) the prevalence of depression with the 14-question Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), (ii) the correlation between the two lead depression symptoms from the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and HADS, and (iii) the relationship between depression symptoms with physiological markers of OSA. METHODS: An observational study of depression questionnaires in patients referred because of snoring to a sleep clinic within university-affiliated public teaching hospital. RESULTS: Ninety-seven per cent of 240 patients approached responded, and 32% had a positive HADS (score >16/42). The HADS and MINI significantly correlated (r = 0.736, P < 0.001). Fifty-three per cent had either doctor-diagnosed depression (28%) and/or a positive HADS or MINI (25%). HADS correlated with the degree of sleepiness (r = 0.252, P < 0.0001) and inversely with hypoxaemia (r=-0.231, P < 0.0003) but not with the frequency of apnoeas and hypopnoeas (r = 0.116, P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Depending on classification, 32-53% of patients with snoring had depressive symptoms or were on treatment, which is significantly greater than the Australian average of 21%. A simplified depression questionnaire was validated. Severity of depression correlated with sleepiness and hypoxaemia but not with severity of sleep apnoea.

Mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer among Australasian thoracic physicians: clinical practice and constraints on minimally invasive techniques.

BACKGROUND/AIM: We determined current practice among Australasian thoracic physicians in the mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We focused on the availability of endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) and constraints to its use, as there has been no systematic analysis regarding the availability and uptake of this new technology among thoracic physicians. METHODS: Physician members of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand were emailed a survey seeking their current approach to three scenarios requiring mediastinal staging of NSCLC. Respondents were also asked for their preferred investigation for each scenario if any current constraints were removed. Relevant demographic information was sought. RESULTS: We received 164 responses from 512 Australasian physicians (34%). Without constraints, EBUS-TBNA was the preferred investigation for all three clinical scenarios, but only 33% of respondents had access to EBUS-TBNA. Constraints included lack of availability and lack of expertise. Reduced EBUS-TBNA access was associated with a number of clinician factors. CONCLUSIONS: Australasian thoracic physicians prefer EBUS-TBNA for the mediastinal staging of NSCLC, but access to EBUS-TBNA services is limited. We recommend targeted measures to improve access to EBUS-TBNA use and optimise mediastinal staging of NSCLC.

Analysis of multidisciplinary lung cancer practice.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the activity of a lung cancer multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) and examine whether this model of clinical practice results in adherence to best-practice guidelines. METHODS: Prospective analysis of demographic and clinical data in 431 patients referred to a lung cancer MDC for the management of known or suspected thoracic malignancy. Adherence was documented to clinically relevant guideline recommendations concerning timely and evidence-based lung cancer management. RESULTS: Of 431 patients, 257 were diagnosed with primary lung cancer, mean age 68 years, 70% men and 90% current smokers or ex-smokers. Only 21% were referred with known malignancy and 28% were asymptomatic. Overall, 51% had stages I and II non-small-cell lung cancer, with this bias towards early-stage disease greatest in patients from rural areas. Histological confirmation of lung cancer was obtained in 92%. There was a high rate of adherence to international guideline recommendations concerning timely lung cancer diagnosis, staging and treatment implementation. Similarly, there was adherence to selected key evidence based recommendations for lung cancer management contained in national guidelines. CONCLUSION: Within a MDC, patients receive timely diagnosis, staging and treatment according to evidence-based guideline recommendations. The high proportion of patients receiving active treatment has implications for resource allocation. There is a referral bias towards patients with early non-small-cell lung cancer, particularly in rural patients, suggesting that further education about advances in metastatic lung cancer management is required. This study would support the establishment of regional lung cancer services with links to fully resourced MDC.