Asthma patients' and physicians' perspectives on the burden and management of asthma: Post-hoc analysis of APPaRENT 1 and 2 to assess predictors of treatment adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Patient adherence to maintenance medication is critical for improving clinical outcomes in asthma and is a recommended guiding factor for treatment strategy. Previously, the APPaRENT studies assessed patient and physician perspectives on asthma care; here, a post-hoc analysis aimed to identify patient factors associated with good adherence and treatment prescription patterns. METHODS: APPaRENT 1 and 2 were cross-sectional online surveys of 2866 adults with asthma and 1883 physicians across Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Mexico, and the Philippines in 2020-2021. Combined data assessed adherence to maintenance medication, treatment goals, use of asthma action plans, and physician treatment patterns and preferences. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between patient characteristics and both treatment prescription (by physicians) and patient treatment adherence. RESULTS: Patient and physician assessments of treatment goals and adherence differed, as did reporting of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions alongside maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Older age and greater patient-reported severity and reliever use were associated with better adherence. Patient-reported prescription of SABA with MART was associated with household smoking, severe or poorly controlled asthma, and living in China or the Philippines. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed an important disconnect between patient and physician treatment goals and treatment adherence, suggesting that strategies for improving patient adherence to maintenance medication are needed, focusing on younger patients with milder disease. High reliever use despite good adherence may indicate poor disease control. Personalised care considering patient characteristics alongside physician training in motivational communication and shared decision-making could improve patient management and outcomes.

Safety of SABA Monotherapy in Asthma Management: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever overuse is common in asthma, despite availability of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based maintenance therapies, and may be associated with increased risk of adverse events (AEs). This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability of SABA reliever monotherapy for adults and adolescents with asthma, through analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence. METHODS: An SLR of English-language publications between January 1996 and December 2021 included RCTs and observational studies of patients aged ≥ 12 years treated with inhaled SABA reliever monotherapy (fixed dose or as needed) for ≥ 4 weeks. Studies of terbutaline and fenoterol were excluded. Meta-analysis feasibility was dependent on cross-trial data comparability. A random-effects model estimated rates of mortality, serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuation due to AEs (DAEs) for as-needed and fixed-dose SABA treatment groups. ICS monotherapy and SABA therapy were compared using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were identified by the SLR for assessment of feasibility. Final meta-analysis included 24 RCTs. Too few observational studies (n = 2) were available for inclusion in the meta-analysis. One death unrelated to treatment was reported in each of the ICS, ICS + LABA, and fixed-dose SABA groups. No other treatment-related deaths were reported. SAE and DAE rates were < 4%. DAEs were reported more frequently in the SABA treatment groups than with ICS, potentially owing to worsening asthma symptoms being classified as an AE. SAE risk was comparable between SABA and ICS treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of data from RCTs showed that deaths were rare with SABA reliever monotherapy, and rates of SAEs and DAEs were comparable between SABA reliever and ICS treatment groups. When used appropriately within prescribed limits as reliever therapy, SABA does not contribute to excess rates of mortality, SAEs, or DAEs.

Pharmacology Versus Convenience: A Benefit/Risk Analysis of Regular Maintenance Versus Infrequent or As-Needed Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Mild Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the bronchoprotective and benefit/risk profiles of various inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosing regimens in mild asthma. METHODS: A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model was developed and validated describing the relationship between ICS dose and time-course for airway bronchoprotection, [provocative concentration of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) causing ≥ 20% decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (AMP PC20)], for fluticasone furoate (FF), fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD). For regular ICS maintenance therapy (100% and 50% adherence) and infrequent or as-needed use (dosing 3-4 times per week), treatment effectiveness was expressed as percent time during 28 days when bronchoprotection exceeded either the threshold for a treatment-related bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 0.25 doubling dose) or the threshold for a clinically significant bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 1.0 doubling dose). This value was divided by the total ICS dose administered expressed in prednisolone equivalents to give a therapeutic index (TI). RESULTS: The model-predicted time course of ICS-induced bronchoprotection with regular daily maintenance dosing and 100% adherence showed that all ICS at the highest recommended doses for mild asthma exceeded the threshold for clinically significant bronchoprotective effect for all or most of the 28-day dosing period, mean (90% CI); 100% (96.1-100), 99.9% (8.0-100) and 100% (58.2-100) with TI values of 16.9, 6.6 and 5.4 for FF 100 µg OD, FP 200 µg BID and BUD 200 µg BID, respectively. For simulated poor adherence (50%) to regular daily maintenance therapy, corresponding mean (90% CI) values were; 75.7% (39.4-89.1), 52.3% (0.7-69.2) and 51.3% (28.6-58.3) with TI values of 25.7, 6.9 and 5.6. For simulated infrequent/as needed use the corresponding values were; 77.0% (37.6-87.0), 25.5% (0.0-38.0) and 26.2% (14.3-31.5) with TI values of 26.1, 6.7 and 5.7. For all regimen/scenarios, FF had the most sustained efficacy and favourable TI followed by FP and BUD. CONCLUSIONS: At doses recommended for mild asthma, all ICS regimens provide sustained bronchoprotective efficacy when dosed regularly with high adherence. With poor adherence or use 3-4 times per week (infrequent/as needed), longer-acting ICS molecules will more likely provide sustained protection and a better TI versus shorter duration of action molecules (FF > FP ≥ BUD). These data highlight the benefits of using ICS as regular daily maintenance dosing in mild asthma and the potential risks of under-treatment with ICS (which may occur with ICS/formoterol as-needed approach in mild persistent asthma) associated with reduced levels of bronchoprotection.

Erectile Dysfunction: A Review on Prevalence, Perceptions, Diagnosis and Management in India.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is defined as the inability to achieve or maintain penile erection sufficient to permit satisfactory sexual activity. The prevalence increases with age. Basic and clinical research is identifying the neurovascular and humoral control of the mechanisms. The initial evaluation should differentiate erectile dysfunction from premature ejaculation and loss of libido. Myocardial insufficiency, hypogonadism and peripheral neuropathy should be looked for. Initial laboratory investigations should be restricted to identifying previously undetected medical illness that may directly contribute to erectile dysfunction. Discussing the available options with the couple is an important aspect. If erectile dysfunction is secondary to other treatable disorders these should be treated simultaneously. When other diseases that require intervention are ruled out and if there are no contraindications, therapy may be initiated with a phosphodiesterase inhibitor. In selected cases, psychosexual therapy may be beneficial. If phosphodiesterase inhibitors are contraindicated, vacuum constriction devices may be tried. Further options include intracavernosal injection, intraurethral instillation, penile revascularization and prosthesis. The availability of effective and well-tolerated oral medications has dramatically changed the clinical approach to erectile dysfunction. Pharmacotherapy is the preferred cost-effective first-line therapy in the vast majority of patients. A stepped-care approach is followed in the primary care and family practice settings. Appropriate urological, endocrine and psychiatric referrals, and shared decision-making with the couple will enable effective treatment of men with erectile dysfunction.

Understanding masked depression: A Clinical scenario.

BACKGROUND: Masked depression is often misdiagnosed due to the predominance of somatic symptoms and is further complicated by lack of awareness among doctors. AIM: The present survey was conducted to gather the views of psychiatrists and nonpsychiatrists regarding presentation and management aspects of masked depression. This may help in unmasking this condition and facilitate early identification and appropriate management of patients presenting with this condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This questionnaire-based survey was conducted as an interview through computer-aided telephonic interview among 300 doctors (150 psychiatrists and 150 nonpsychiatrists) across India. RESULTS: Both psychiatrists and nonpsychiatrists reported a high prevalence of somatic symptoms among patients with masked depression. Nonpsychiatrists (44%) more often than psychiatrists (20%) noted chronic pain in the majority of patients with masked depression. Psychiatrists (31%) more often than nonpsychiatrists (9%) noted lack of concentration in the majority of patients with masked depression. Sexual dysfunction among young patients and noncompliance to therapy for chronic illness were considered as potential predictors of masked depression. There was a general agreement among psychiatrists and nonpsychiatrists that medical liaising is beneficial for the management of patients with masked depression. CONCLUSION: Both psychiatrists and nonpsychiatrists agree that somatic symptoms are commonly encountered in patients with masked depression. However, these somatic symptoms are often interpreted as physical illness rather than as an entity of depression which creates an unmet need in terms of managing masked depression, especially by nonpsychiatrists.