Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort.

BACKGROUND: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma. METHODS: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day. RESULTS: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria.

Patient asthma networks: understanding who is important and why.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) has been proposed as an essential component to the delivery of effective and efficient health care. However, patients have shown to establish their own sources of health advice and support outside the professional domain. It remained unclear as to how patients' choices may impact on MDC. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the role of patients in MDC, specifically (i) how and why patients select sources of health services, information and support, that is, their health connections and (ii) the key elements contributing to the nature and development of patients' health connections. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with asthma participants from Sydney, Australia. Participants were recruited from a broad range of primary health-care access points. Face-to-face and telephone interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, independently reviewed by two authors and analysed using a qualitative approach. RESULTS: A total of 47 interviews were conducted. Participants established health connections around their asthma needs and selected a combination of professional, personal and impersonal health connections for advice and support. Several key elements were reported to contribute towards the nature and development of patients' health networks. These included participants' perceptions of the role of HCPs, their level of trust in relationships, the convenience of accessing health advice and their perceptions of asthma. CONCLUSION: By exploring patients' sources of health advice and support, this research provided new insight into how patients choose to manage asthma, particularly the way in which they selected health connections and their potential impact on MDC.

Development and evaluation of an innovative model of inter-professional education focused on asthma medication use.

BACKGROUND: Inter-professional learning has been promoted as the solution to many clinical management issues. One such issue is the correct use of asthma inhaler devices. Up to 80% of people with asthma use their inhaler device incorrectly. The implications of this are poor asthma control and quality of life. Correct inhaler technique can be taught, however these educational instructions need to be repeated if correct technique is to be maintained. It is important to maximise the opportunities to deliver this education in primary care. In light of this, it is important to explore how health care providers, in particular pharmacists and general medical practitioners, can work together in delivering inhaler technique education to patients, over time. Therefore, there is a need to develop and evaluate effective inter-professional education, which will address the need to educate patients in the correct use of their inhalers as well as equip health care professionals with skills to engage in collaborative relationships with each other. METHODS: This mixed methods study involves the development and evaluation of three modules of continuing education, Model 1, Model 2 and Model 3. A fourth group, Model 4, acting as a control.Model 1 consists of face-to-face continuing professional education on asthma inhaler technique, aimed at pharmacists, general medical practitioners and their practice nurses.Model 2 is an electronic online continuing education module based on Model 1 principles.Model 3 is also based on asthma inhaler technique education but employs a learning intervention targeting health care professional relationships and is based on sociocultural theory.This study took the form of a parallel group, repeated measure design. Following the completion of continuing professional education, health care professionals recruited people with asthma and followed them up for 6 months. During this period, inhaler device technique training was delivered and data on patient inhaler technique, clinical and humanistic outcomes were collected. Outcomes related to professional collaborative relationships were also measured. DISCUSSION: Challenges presented included the requirement of significant financial resources for development of study materials and limited availability of validated tools to measure health care professional collaboration over time.

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.

Association between pre-biologic T2-biomarker combinations and response to biologics in patients with severe asthma.

Background: To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials. Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life. Methods: This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers. Results: Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE. Conclusions: The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.

Feasibility and effectiveness of an evidence-based asthma service in Australian community pharmacies: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility, effectiveness, and sustainability of a pharmacy asthma service in primary care. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized trial in community pharmacies in four Australian states/territories in 2009. Specially trained pharmacists were randomized to deliver an asthma service in two groups, providing three versus four consultations over 6 months. People with poorly controlled asthma or no recent asthma review were included. Follow-up for 12 months after service completion occurred in 30% of randomly selected completing patients. Outcomes included change in asthma control (poor and fair/good) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score, inhaler technique, quality of life, perceived control, adherence, asthma knowledge, and asthma action plan ownership. RESULTS: Ninety-six pharmacists enrolled 570 patients, with 398 (70%) completing. Asthma control significantly improved with both the three- and four-visit service, with no significant difference between groups (good/fair control 29% and 21% at baseline, 61% and 59% at end, p = .791). Significant improvements were also evident in the ACQ (mean change 0.56), inhaler technique (17-33% correct baseline, 57-72% end), asthma action plan ownership (19% baseline, 56% end), quality of life, adherence, perceived control, and asthma knowledge, with no significant difference between groups for any variable. Outcomes were sustained at 12 months post-service. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacy asthma service delivered clinically important improvements in both a three-visit and four-visit service. Pharmacists were able to recruit and deliver the service with minimal intervention, suggesting it is practical to implement in practice. The three-visit service would be feasible and effective to implement, with a review at 12 months.

Multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care: through the eyes of patients.

Managing chronic illness is highly complex and the pathways to access health care for the patient are unpredictable and often unknown. While multidisciplinary care (MDC) arrangements are promoted in the Australian primary health care system, there is a paucity of research on multidisciplinary collaboration from patients' perspectives. This exploratory study is the first to gain an understanding of the experiences, perceptions, attitudes and potential role of people with chronic illness (asthma) on the delivery of MDC in the Australian primary health care setting. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with asthma patients from Sydney, Australia. Qualitative analysis of data indicates that patients are significant players in MDC and their perceptions of their chronic condition, perceived roles of health care professionals, and expectations of health care delivery, influence their participation and attitudes towards multidisciplinary services. Our research shows the challenges presented by patients in the delivery and establishment of multidisciplinary health care teams, and highlights the need to consider patients' perspectives in the development of MDC models in primary care.

Experiences of community pharmacists involved in the delivery of a specialist asthma service in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The role of community pharmacists in disease state management has been mooted for some years. Despite a number of trials of disease state management services, there is scant literature into the engagement of, and with, pharmacists in such trials. This paper reports pharmacists' feedback as providers of a Pharmacy Asthma Management Service (PAMS), a trial coordinated across four academic research centres in Australia in 2009. We also propose recommendations for optimal involvement of pharmacists in academic research. METHODS: Feedback about the pharmacists' experiences was sought via their participation in either a focus group or telephone interview (for those unable to attend their scheduled focus group) at one of three time points. A semi-structured interview guide focused discussion on the pharmacists' training to provide the asthma service, their interactions with health professionals and patients as per the service protocol, and the future for this type of service. Focus groups were facilitated by two researchers, and the individual interviews were shared between three researchers, with data transcribed verbatim and analysed manually. RESULTS: Of 93 pharmacists who provided the PAMS, 25 were involved in a focus group and seven via telephone interview. All pharmacists approached agreed to provide feedback. In general, the pharmacists engaged with both the service and research components, and embraced their roles as innovators in the trial of a new service. Some experienced challenges in the recruitment of patients into the service and the amount of research-related documentation, and collaborative patient-centred relationships with GPs require further attention. Specific service components, such as the spirometry, were well received by the pharmacists and their patients. Professional rewards included satisfaction from their enhanced practice, and pharmacists largely envisaged a future for the service. CONCLUSIONS: The PAMS provided pharmacists an opportunity to become involved in an innovative service delivery model, supported by the researchers, yet trained and empowered to implement the clinical service throughout the trial period and beyond. The balance between support and independence appeared crucial in the pharmacists' engagement with the trial. Their feedback was overwhelmingly positive, while useful suggestions were identified for future academic trials.

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs.

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy.

Unmet needs of older people with asthma: cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma in older people is a major cause of disease burden in Australia and is projected to increase over the next two decades. Current guidelines for asthma care rely predominantly on studies from younger populations. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional survey of older people with asthma to identify their concerns and their perceived asthma symptom burden. One hundred and ninety-nine people over 55 years of age with asthma were recruited from community pharmacies, in the states of Victoria and NSW, Australia. RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty (62%) participants reported "perfectly" or "very well controlled" asthma over the past month, and 78% claimed adherence to asthma treatment. Despite this, 105 (55%) reported experiencing moderate to severe symptoms and 58 (30%) moderate to extreme restrictions on their lifestyle in the past month. Exacerbations were also common with over one-third of participants seeking emergency asthma care or requiring oral corticosteroids in the past 12 months. In spite of 80% of participants reporting confidence of how to manage their asthma properly, only 10% said they would call an ambulance or visit an Emergency Department if their asthma was "out of control." Further asthma self-management education was considered desirable by two-thirds. However, those over 65 years preferred less autonomy in decision-making compared to those under 65 years. CONCLUSION. Older people with asthma experience a high symptom burden. A simplified version of our questionnaire could assist GPs, specialists, and asthma educators to identify the individual needs of older patients and to tailor their delivery of asthma care accordingly.

Using the community pharmacy to identify patients at risk of poor asthma control and factors which contribute to this poor control.

BACKGROUND: Although asthma can be well controlled by appropriate medication delivered in an appropriate way at an appropriate time, there is evidence that management is often suboptimal. This results in poor asthma control, poor quality of life, and significant morbidity. METHODS: The objective of this study was to describe a population recruited in community pharmacy identified by trained community pharmacists as being at risk for poor asthma outcomes and to identify factors associated with poor asthma control. It used a cross-sectional design in 96 pharmacies in metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and Australian Capital Territory in Australia. Community pharmacists with specialized asthma training enrolled 570 patients aged ≥18 years with doctor-diagnosed asthma who were considered at risk of poor asthma outcomes and then conducted a comprehensive asthma assessment. In this assessment, asthma control was classified using a symptom and activity tool based on self-reported frequency of symptoms during the previous month and categorized as poor, fair, or good. Asthma history was discussed, and lung function and inhaler technique were also assessed by the pharmacist. Medication use/adherence was recorded from both pharmacy records and the Brief Medication Questionnaire (BMQ). RESULTS: The symptom and activity tool identified that 437 (77%) recruited patients had poor asthma control. Of the 570 patients, 117 (21%) smoked, 108 (19%) had an action plan, 372 (69%) used combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß(2)-agonist (LABA) medications, and only 17-28% (depending on device) used their inhaler device correctly. In terms of adherence, 90% had their ICS or ICS/LABA dispensed <6 times in the previous 6 months, which is inconsistent with regular use; this low adherence was confirmed from the BMQ scores. A logistic regression model showed that patients who smoked had incorrect inhaler technique or low adherence (assessed by either dispensing history or BMQ) and were more likely to have poor control. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists were able to identify patients with asthma at risk of suboptimal control, and factors that contributed to this were elicited. This poorly controlled group that was identified may not be visible or accessible to other health-care professionals. There is an opportunity within pharmacies to target poorly controlled asthma and provide timely and tailored interventions.

User error with Diskus and Turbuhaler by asthma patients and pharmacists in Jordan and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Use of inhalers requires accurate completion of multiple steps to ensure effective medication delivery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the most problematic steps in the use of Diskus and Turbuhaler for pharmacists and patients in Jordon and Australia. METHODS: With standardized inhaler-technique checklists, we asked community pharmacists to demonstrate the use of Diskus and Turbuhaler. We asked patients with asthma to demonstrate the inhaler (Diskus or Turbuhaler) they were currently using. RESULTS: Forty-two community pharmacists in Jordan, and 31 in Australia, participated. In Jordan, 51 asthma patients demonstrated use of Diskus, and 40 demonstrated use of Turbuhaler. In Australia, 53 asthma patients demonstrated use of Diskus, and 42 demonstrated use of Turbuhaler. RESULTS: The pharmacists in Australia had received inhaler-technique education more recently than those in Jordan (P = .03). With Diskus, few pharmacists in either country demonstrated correct technique for step 3 (exhale to residual volume) or step 4 (exhale away from the device), although there were somewhat fewer errors in Australia than Jordan (16% vs 0% in step 3, P = .007, and 20% vs 0% in step 4, P = .003 via chi-square test). With Turbuhaler there were significant differences between the pharmacists from Australia and Jordan, mainly in step 2 (hold the device upright while loading, 45% vs 2% correct, P < .001). Few of the patients had received inhaler-technique education in the previous year. The patients made errors similar to those of the pharmacists in individual steps with Diskus and Turbuhaler. The essential steps with Diskus were performed correctly more often by the Jordanian patients, and with Turbuhaler by the Australian patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in Jordan's and Australia's health systems, pharmacists from both Australia and Jordan had difficulty with the same Diskus and Turbuhaler steps. In both countries, the errors made by the asthma patients were similar to those made by the pharmacists.

Metered-dose inhaler technique: the effect of two educational interventions delivered in community pharmacy over time.

Instruction is critical in order to ensure correct technique with pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) by patients. The aim of this study was to compare the effects over time of two educational interventions delivered in community pharmacy to pMDI users. In this randomized controlled parallel-group study, pMDI technique was assessed before and after written and verbal instruction, alone or with physical demonstration, at baseline and 4, 8, and 16 weeks. The study recruited 52 subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Initially only 1/52 (6%) subject had correct pMDI technique (= checklist score 8/8), with mean baseline score 5 (SD 1) for both groups. Written and verbal information improved pMDI technique at 16 weeks (7 +/- 1, p < .05). Addition of physical demonstration resulted in significant improvement at weeks 4, 8, and 16 (7 +/- 1, 7 +/- 1, 7 +/- 1 respectively; p < .05 for each). Subjects receiving written and verbal information alone were less likely to return for follow-up than those receiving physical demonstration (8 weeks: 6/25 versus 19/27; p < .001). By the 8-week visit, 80% subjects in the physical demonstration group had correct technique prior to education, compared with 10% of subjects receiving written and verbal information alone (p < .05). There was some decline in inhaler technique by 16 weeks. The results demonstrate that adding a physical demonstration is more effective in improving pMDI technique than written and verbal instructions alone.

Pharmacists' perceptions of their role in asthma management and barriers to the provision of asthma services.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies have explored pharmacists' perceptions of their potential role in asthma management. This study aimed to investigate community pharmacists' perceptions of their role in the provision of asthma care, to compare the perceptions of metropolitan and regional pharmacists with regards to their role, to identify barriers to the provision of asthma management services and to explore their level of inter-professional contact. METHODS: A 29-item questionnaire was mailed to a convenience sample of community pharmacists. Items included pharmacists' perceptions of their role in asthma management, barriers to pharmacy asthma services and inter-professional contact. The setting was community pharmacies in metropolitan and rural New South Wales, Australia. KEY FINDINGS: Seventy-five pharmacists (63% male, 69% in metropolitan pharmacies) returned completed questionnaires (response rate 89%). Pharmacists perceived their role in asthma management along three major dimensions: 'patient self-management', 'medication use' and 'asthma control'. Regional pharmacists described a broader role than metropolitan pharmacists. Most participants perceived time and patient-related factors to be the main barriers to optimal asthma care with pharmacist's lack of confidence and skills in various aspects of asthma care less important barriers. Almost 70% indicated that they would like more inter-professional contact regarding the care of patients with asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists perceived a three-dimensional role in asthma care with regional pharmacists more likely to embrace a broader role in asthma management compared to metropolitan pharmacists. Pharmacists identified time and patient-related factors as the major barriers to the provision of asthma services. Future research should explore barriers and facilitators to expansion of the pharmacist's role in asthma management in a holistic way.

Evaluation of a novel educational strategy, including inhaler-based reminder labels, to improve asthma inhaler technique.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a brief intervention about inhaler technique, delivered by community pharmacists to asthma patients. METHODS: Thirty-one pharmacists received brief workshop education (Active: n=16, CONTROL: n=15). Active Group pharmacists were trained to assess and teach dry powder inhaler technique, using patient-centered educational tools including novel Inhaler Technique Labels. Interventions were delivered to patients at four visits over 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, patients (Active: 53, CONTROL: 44) demonstrated poor inhaler technique (mean+/-S.D. score out of 9, 5.7+/-1.6). At 6 months, improvement in inhaler technique score was significantly greater in Active cf. CONTROL patients (2.8+/-1.6 cf. 0.9+/-1.4, p<0.001), and asthma severity was significantly improved (p=0.015). Qualitative responses from patients and pharmacists indicated a high level of satisfaction with the intervention and educational tools, both for their effectiveness and for their impact on the patient-pharmacist relationship. CONCLUSION: A simple feasible intervention in community pharmacies, incorporating daily reminders via Inhaler Technique Labels on inhalers, can lead to improvement in inhaler technique and asthma outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Brief training modules and simple educational tools, such as Inhaler Technique Labels, can provide a low-cost and sustainable way of changing patient behavior in asthma, using community pharmacists as educators.

Identifying Critical Errors: Addressing Inhaler Technique in the Context of Asthma Management.

Medication use has always played a highly significant role in the overall management of asthma, with appropriate use being linked to good asthma control. However, while patients with asthma enjoy the 'luxury' of having medications delivered directly to the lungs via inhaler devices, with that comes the additional challenge of ensuring that inhaler devices are used correctly. Research and practice provides evidence to the challenges associated with inhaler use and the particular steps that patients perform incorrectly. While this problem is well documented, acknowledged and reported, little has changed in 40 years, and the proportion of patients using inhaler devices remains unacceptably high. This review focuses on aspects specific to the errors that patient's make, the significance of these errors, and the important considerations for health care practitioners in supporting patients in correctly using their inhalers. This review highlights the complexities associated with patient's making inhaler technique errors and highlights the opportunities that lie in future technological developments of inhaler devices. Now more than ever, in the era of precision medicine, it is important that we address inhaler technique use once and for all.

Physiological predictors Of peak inspiRatory flow using Observed lung function resultS (POROS): evaluation at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) as generated through the resistance of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) device is a critical patient-dependent maneuver impacting the success of DPI medication delivery. Despite its importance, it is not routinely measured in clinical practice. Little is currently known about the relationship, if any, between PIF through DPI devices, routine spirometry and disease outcomes. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify potential predictors of PIF for different DPIs from spirometric parameters and patient characteristics and explore the association between PIF and follow-up events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation at Attikon hospital, Athens, Greece. Spirometry was performed using an Easy on-PC™ spirometer. PIF was measured through four DPI resistances using the In-Check™ DIAL. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between PIF through resistances and spirometric parameters obtained at discharge, comorbidities and demographic parameters. RESULTS: Forty-seven COPD patients (mean [±SD], age 71 [±9] years, 72% males, 51% current smokers) were included in this study. Overall, 85% and 15% were classified as GOLD (2017) groups D and C, respectively. Most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (70%) and cardiovascular disease (53%). In the final regression model, higher PIF was significantly associated with the following: higher FEV1 and % predicted peak expiratory flow (PEF) for Turbohaler® (R-squared value 0.374); higher FEV1 and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Aerolizer® (R-squared value 0.209) and higher FEV1, younger age and diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) for Diskus® (R-squared value 0.350). However, R-squared values for all three devices were weak (<0.4). CONCLUSION: The study did not provide evidence to support the use of surrogate measurements for PIF through device resistance, which could assist in determining the appropriateness of inhaler device type. Although PIF measurement is feasible in patients at discharge and could be a valuable addition to the standard of care in COPD management, it needs to be measured directly.

Real-life treatment of rhinitis in Australia: a historical cohort study of prescription and over-the-counter therapies for patients with and without additional respiratory disease.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to explore rhinitis therapy purchases in different Australian regions for patients with and without additional respiratory disease, using both doctor's prescriptions and over-the-counter (OTC) medications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: It was a historical cohort study of pharmacy-related claims that included prescription or OTC rhinitis therapy, with or without asthma/COPD therapy, from January 2013 to December 2014. RESULTS: Overall, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over a calendar year; the majority were single-therapy purchases for rhinitis only patients. More multiple-therapy was purchased for rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients (4.4%) than for rhinitis only patients (4.0%), with a greater proportion purchased in VIC, SA and TAS (4.7% of rhinitis only patients and 4.5% of rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients) than in other areas. Dual therapy of oral antihistamine (OAH) and intranasal corticosteroid (INS) were the most frequently purchased multiple-therapy, with higher purchasing rates for rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients (2.6%) than for rhinitis only patients (1.6%). The most frequently purchased single therapy was OAH (70.1% of rhinitis only patients and 57.3% of rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients). First-line INS therapy was more likely to be purchased for rhinitis and asthma/COPD patients (15.3% by prescription and 11.7% OTC) than for rhinitis only patients (5.0% by prescription and 9.2% OTC); however, geographical differences in the proportion of therapies purchased OTC were noted, with a lower proportion of OTC OAH and INS purchases in Queensland and the Northern Territory for patients with and without comorbid respiratory disease. CONCLUSION: Purchases of first-line INS therapy are more likely for patients with comorbid respiratory disease if they have received prescriptions and information/advice from their general practitioner. The study results indicate a need for patient information/education at the point-of-sale of OTC OAHs to enable patients to assess their nasal symptoms and receive treatment support from pharmacists. Greater availability to INSs in pharmacies as well as guidance from current guidelines and instruction in correct intranasal technique may also lead to greater uptake of INSs.