The at-risk registers in severe asthma (ARRISA) study: a cluster-randomised controlled trial examining effectiveness and costs in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patients at risk of severe exacerbations contribute disproportionally to asthma mortality, morbidity and costs. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of using 'asthma risk registers' for these patients in primary care. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised trial, 29 primary care practices identified 911 at-risk asthma patients using British asthma guideline criteria (severe asthma plus adverse psychosocial characteristics). Intervention practices added electronic alerts to identified patients' records to flag their at-risk status and received practice-based training about using the alerts to improve patient access and opportunistic management. Control practices continued routine care. Numbers of patients experiencing the primary outcome of a moderate-severe exacerbation (resulting in death, hospitalisation, accident and emergency attendance, out-of-hours contact, or a course/boost in oral prednisolone for asthma), other healthcare and medication usage, and costs over 1 year were derived from practice-based records. RESULTS: There was no significant effect on exacerbations (control: 46.5%; intervention: 53.6%, OR, 95% CI 1.30, 0.93 to 1.80). However, this composite outcome masked relative reductions in intervention patients experiencing hospitalisations (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94), accident and emergency (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.31) and out-of-hours contacts (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.37); and a relative increase in prednisolone prescription for exacerbations (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85). Furthermore, prescription of nebulised short-acting ß-agonists reduced and long-acting ß-agonists increased for intervention relative to control patients. The adjusted mean per patient healthcare cost was £138.21 lower (p=0.837) among intervention practices. CONCLUSION: Using asthma risk registers in primary care did not reduce treated exacerbations, but reduced hospitalisations and increased prescriptions of recommended preventative therapies without increasing costs.

A controlled retrospective pilot study of an 'at-risk asthma register' in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There are few reports of primary care initiatives designed to improve management of asthma patients who are at risk of adverse outcomes. AIM: To assess the impact on emergency treatments, service use, and costs, of introducing an at-risk asthma register in a general practice surgery. METHODS: Asthma patients demonstrating characteristics associated with adverse outcomes were added to an at-risk register. Tags were placed in patients' records and practice staff were trained to ensure their appropriate recognition and management. Data were retrospectively extracted from the notes of 26 identified at-risk patients, as well as 26 age-, sex-, and treatment-matched controls with asthma, for one year before and after the introduction of the register. Implementation and service use costs were estimated. RESULTS: Before introduction of the register, more 'at-risk' than control patients were hospitalised (3 vs. 0), attended the accident and emergency (A&E) department (1 vs. 0), and were nebulised (4 vs. 0), for asthma. Significantly higher numbers also used out-of-hours services, received oral steroids, attended their general practitioner (GP), and failed to attend scheduled clinics for asthma (all p<0.025). After introduction of the register, no at-risk patients were admitted or attended A&E. Although differences in the numbers receiving oral steroids remained (p = 0.05), other differences disappeared. There were notably greater reductions in overall numbers of admissions, out-of-hours attendances, GP attendances, courses of steroids, and total costs associated with service use, amongst 'at-risk' as compared to control patients. CONCLUSIONS: An at-risk asthma register is a low cost initiative warranting further evaluation, since it may facilitate appropriate service use in a vulnerable and costly patient group.