Prevalence and burden of difficult-to-treat and severe asthma in Australia: A national population survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most evidence about difficult-to-treat and severe asthma (DTTA) comes from clinical trials and registries. We aimed to identify people with DTTA from a large nationally representative asthma population and describe their characteristics and healthcare utilization compared with people whose asthma was not 'difficult-to-treat'. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Australians aged ≥18 years with current asthma from large web-based survey panels. Enrolment was stratified by gender, age-group and state/territory based on national population data for people with asthma. Difficult-to-treat or severe asthma was defined by poor symptom control, exacerbations and/or oral corticosteroid/biologic use despite medium/high-dose inhaled therapy. Outcomes included exacerbations, healthcare utilization, multimorbidity, quality of life and coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19)-related behaviour. Weighted data were analysed using SAS version 9.4. RESULTS: The survey was conducted in February-March 2021. The weighted sample comprised 6048 adults with current asthma (average age 47.3 ± SD 18.1 years, 59.9% female), with 1313 (21.7%) satisfying ≥1 DTTA criteria. Of these, 50.4% had very poorly controlled symptoms (Asthma Control Test ≤15), 36.2% were current smokers, and 85.4% had ≥1 additional chronic condition, most commonly anxiety/depression. More than twice as many participants with DTTA versus non-DTTA had ≥1 urgent general practitioner (GP) visit (61.4% vs. 27.5%, OR 4.8 [4.2-5.5, p < 0.0001]), or ≥1 emergency room visit (41.9% vs. 17.9%, OR 3.8 [3.3-4.4, p < 0.0001]) in the previous 12 months. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasize the burden of uncontrolled symptoms, current smoking, multimorbidity and healthcare utilization in people with DTTA in the community, who may be under-represented in registries or clinical trials.

Contribution of obesity to breathlessness in a large nationally representative sample of Australian adults.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Breathlessness is prevalent and associated with medical consequences. Obesity is related to breathlessness. However, the magnitude of its contribution has not been clearly documented. This investigation aimed to determine the contribution of obesity to breathlessness by estimating the population attributable fraction (PAF) in a representative sample of Australian adults. METHODS: A cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of Australian residents aged ≥18 years was conducted in October 2019. Breathlessness was defined as modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale grade ≥2. BMI was calculated from self-reported height and weight. Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) were estimated using a generalized linear model with Poisson distribution, adjusted for age group and/or participant-reported diagnosed illnesses. Adjusted PAFs were estimated using aRR and obesity prevalence in Australian adults. RESULTS: Among those who completed the National Breathlessness Survey, 9769 participants (51.4% female) were included in the analysis; 28.1% of participants were obese. The prevalence of breathlessness was 9.54%. The aRR of obesity for breathlessness was 2.04, adjusted for age. Adjusting for various co-morbid conditions, the aRR was slightly attenuated to around 1.85-1.98. The PAF, adjusted only for age, was 24.6% (95% CI 20.1-29.1) and after further adjustment for co-morbid conditions, the PAF ranged from 21.1% to 23.6%. Obesity accounted for a higher proportion of breathlessness in women than in men. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that obesity accounts for around a quarter of breathlessness symptoms in Australian adults. This has important implications for health policy in light of the global trend in increasing obesity.

How to step down asthma preventer treatment in patients with well-controlled asthma - more is not always better.

Most of the benefit of asthma preventer inhalers is seen with low doses. However, many Australian patients are prescribed doses of inhaled corticosteroids that are higher than necessary to control their asthma. Prescribing unnecessarily high preventer doses increases the patient's risk of adverse effects. They may also increase the patient's out-of-pocket costs. Asthma guidelines recommend considering a step-down in preventer treatment after asthma has been well controlled for two to three months in adults and for six months in children. The step-down process should be individualised for each patient. Preventive therapy should not be stopped completely.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on the use of medicinal cannabis to manage chronic pain: A systematic search and narrative review.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain is a global public health problem that negatively impacts individuals' quality of life and imposes a substantial economic burden on societies. The use of medicinal cannabis (MC) is often considered by patients to help manage chronic pain as an alternative or supplement to more conventional treatments, given enabling legalization in a number of countries. However, healthcare professionals involved in providing guidance for patients related to MC are often doing so in the absence of strong evidence and clinical guidelines. Therefore, it is crucial to understand their perspectives regarding the clinical use and relevance of MC for chronic pain. As little is known about attitudes of HCPs with regard to MC use for chronic pain specifically, the aim of this review was to identify and synthesize the published evidence on this topic. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across six databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed from 2001 to March 26, 2021. Three authors independently performed the study selection and data extraction. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify key themes. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies were included, involving the United States, Israel, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Norway, and the perspectives of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. Seven key themes were identified: MC as a treatment option for chronic pain, and perceived indicated uses; willingness to prescribe MC; legal issues; low perceived knowledge and the need for education; comparative safety of MC versus opioids; addiction and abuse; and perceived adverse effects; CONCLUSION: To support best practice in the use of MC for chronic pain, healthcare professionals require education and training, as well as clinical guidelines that provide evidence-based information about efficacy, safety, and appropriate dosage of products for this indication. Until these gaps are addressed, healthcare professionals will be limited in their capacity to make treatment recommendations about MC for people/patients with chronic pain.

"You've got to breathe, you know" - asthma patients and carers' perceptions around purchase and use of asthma preventer medicines.

OBJECTIVE: To explore influences on patients' purchase and use of asthma preventer medicines and the perceived acceptability of financial incentives via reduced patient co-payments. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone or face-to-face interviews were conducted with adults and carers of children with asthma. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded. Data were analysed using thematic analysis via grounded theory. RESULTS: Twenty-four adults and 20 carers for children aged 3-17 years with asthma were interviewed. For medicines choice, most participants did not consider themselves the primary decision-maker; cost of medicines was an issue for some, but effectiveness was described as more important. For adherence, cost, side-effects, perceived benefit and patient behaviours were important. CONCLUSIONS: Patient barriers to adherence with asthma preventer medicines including cost are ongoing. Healthcare professionals need to encourage empathic discussion with patients about cost issues. Implications for public health: Asthma patients and carers could benefit from greater involvement and respect within shared decision-making. Healthcare professionals should be aware that cost may be a barrier for patient adherence, and provided with information about the relative costs of guideline-recommended asthma medicines. Patients and healthcare professionals need education around the efficacy of ICS-alone treatment and the rationale behind co-payments, for initiatives around quality use of medicines to succeed.

Knowledge that people with intellectual disabilities have of their inhaled asthma medications: messages for pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Fifteen percent of Australians with intellectual disability (ID) are reported to have asthma. People with ID are at risk of poor health knowledge due to deficits in intellectual and adaptive functioning, but their medication knowledge has largely been ignored in research to date. OBJECTIVE: To explore the level of understanding of asthma medication use of people with ID who self-administer their inhaled medications, in order to inform future educational support. Setting The research was conducted in NSW, Australia, at the participants' homes, the point of health care access, or the offices of relevant support organisations. METHOD: In this qualitative study face-to-face interviews were conducted with people with ID using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Main outcome Identification of barriers to asthma medication self-management by people with ID. RESULTS: Seventeen people with ID who self-administer their asthma medications were interviewed. Factors influencing their asthma medication knowledge and use included understanding of their illness and the need for medication; aspects of self-management and autonomy versus dependence. This sample of people with ID had a good understanding of the importance of using their inhaled asthma medications, as well as asthma triggers, and the difference between use of preventer and reliever medications. Both enablers and barriers to asthma medication self-management were identified in the domains of managing attacks, adherence, knowledge of side effects and sources of information on correct use of inhalers. The level of autonomy for medication use varied, with motivation to self-manage asthma influenced by the level of support that was practically available to individual participants. CONCLUSION: This research investigated aspects of asthma medication self-management of people with ID. Based on the barriers identified, pharmacists should promote use of spacers and written asthma action plans as well as counsel people with ID about how to recognise and minimise side effects of asthma medications. Specific strategies for pharmacists when educating people with ID and their caregivers include active listening to determine understanding of concepts, exercising care with language, and working with the person's known routines to maximise adherence with preventer medications.

Respiratory medication use in an Australian developmental disability clinic population: messages for health care professionals.

Australian data suggest up to 15% of people with intellectual disability (ID) have asthma. The inhaled route of administration is optimal for the management of obstructive airways diseases; however, correct inhaler use requires dexterity and particular breathing patterns and potentially represents a problem in this population due to physical and cognitive deficits. Understanding the nature and extent of inhaler use in persons with ID is important, as correct inhaler technique is imperative for optimal clinical outcomes; however, currently no evidence base exists to inform health professionals. This study describes respiratory medication use, reported prevalence of asthma, and asthma management practices undertaken in a clinic sample of Australian adults with ID. Results showed a prevalence of retrospectively reported asthma of 6%, with 86% of asthma patients prescribed inhaled medication. A review of patient records also indicated omission of some recommended asthma management strategies.

Pethidine in emergency departments: promoting evidence-based prescribing.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce pethidine prescribing in hospital emergency departments (EDs). DESIGN: Multi-centre drug use evaluation (DUE) process. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Emergency departments in 23 public hospitals (22 in New South Wales, 1 in Victoria) from 1 September 2002 to 31 August 2003. Participating hospitals included seven principal referral hospitals, six major non-teaching hospitals and 10 district or community hospitals. Data for comparison were collected from 12 non-participating hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital coordinators at each participating hospital were provided with support to implement a range of prescribing interventions in their ED in each of three DUE cycles. Interventions included educational materials (guidelines, posters, prescribing reminders), audit and feedback, and small-group discussions. Three audits of pethidine prescribing were undertaken. Prescribing was compared with evidence-based guidelines and non-concordance identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of dosage units of parenteral analgesics issued to the ED from each hospital's pharmacy department was recorded monthly and aggregated in 3-month periods. RESULTS: In the 12 months between the preintervention period and the equivalent post-intervention period, pethidine use decreased by 62% in project hospitals (4669 to 1793 units) and 56% in control hospitals (1476 to 648 units). Six months after project completion there was a significantly greater reduction from baseline in participating hospitals (71%; 4669 to 1348 units) compared with non-participating hospitals (64%; 1476 to 532 units; P < 0.001). There was a concurrent increase in use of both morphine and tramadol. CONCLUSION: There was a sustained reduction in pethidine use during the study period, which may indicate successful promotion of safer analgesic prescribing. It is not clear whether changes were a result of collaborative DUE methods or other factors.