Predictors of success/failure in the control of asthmatic smoking patients under conditions of clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking directly affects the airway, where it triggers a very strong local inflammatory response. OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictors of improvement or worsening of asthma control in asthmatic smokers. METHODS: Observational, prospective, multicenter, single cohort study, carried out in the outpatient pulmonology departments with a follow-up period of 6 months. The treatment was adjusted according to the indications of standard clinical practice. RESULTS: 196 patients were included, with a mean age of 54.64 years.39% of the patients were active smokers. Interpreting an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of ≤ 0.75 as asthma control, this was achieved in 30.2% of the cases. Patients with greater adherence were more likely to improve their asthma symptoms (p < 0.05), defined as a decrease in ACQ of 0.5 points or more at the final visit, while taking concomitant medication was a negative risk factor for improvement (p < 0.001). An eosinophil value >300 was a predictor for achieving control (p < 0.01). Patients treated with fluticasone propionate/formoterol versus those receiving budesonide/formoterol or beclomethasone/formoterol had a lower ACQ score (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Asthmatic patients with active tobacco exposure and a higher number of anti-asthma medications are more likely to have poorer control. Correct adherence to treatment is the main intervention to be performed to achieve the control. An eosinophil count greater than 300 was the main predictor for achieving control. Fluticasone propionate/formoterol FP/FORM was associated with a greater likelihood of improving ACQ score.

Treatment persistence and exacerbations in patients with asthma initiating treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and beta-adrenergic agonists: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine treatment persistence and exacerbations in patients initiating inhaler treatment with fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta-2-adrenergic agonists (ICS/LABA) for the treatment of asthma. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study conducted by review of electronic medical records (database: Fundación RediSS). SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. The follow-up period was 1 year. PARTICIPANTS: The study included patients aged ≥18 years who started treatment with ICS/LABA and met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The study groups were fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), beclomethasone/formoterol (BDP/FORM), budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM), fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) and fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM). The main measurements were persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR) and exacerbations. Statistical significance was established as p<0.05. RESULTS: In total, 3203 patients were recruited for the study. By groups, 31.1% FP/SAL, 28.6% BDP/FORM, 25.0% BUD/FORM, 8.2% FF/VI and 7.0% FP/FORM. The mean age was 52.2 years, 60.8% were female and 44.9% had persistent-moderate asthma. Treatment persistence was 61.7% (95% CI 60.0% to 63.4%) and by study group it was FP/SAL: 60.7%, BDP/FORM: 61.2%, BUD/FORM: 60.3%, FF/VI: 66.7% and FP/FORM: 67.6% (p=0.046). MPR by study group was FP/SAL: 74.3%, BDP/FORM: 73.8%, BUD/FORM: 74.6%, FF/VI: 79.4% and FP/FORM: 80.6% (p=0.028). The mortality rate was 2.9%. By treatment group, exacerbations were FP/SAL: 21.9% (95% CI 19.3% to 24.5%), BDP/FORM: 22.2% (95% CI 19.5% to 24.9%), BUD/FORM: 22.8% (95% CI 19.9% to 25.7%), FF/VI: 17.9% (95% CI 14.9% to 20.7%) and FP/FORM: 16.0% (95% CI 12.2% to 19.3%), p=0.036. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment with FP/FORM and FF/VI versus FP/SAL, BDP/FORM and BUD/FORM were associated with greater treatment adherence (persistence, MPR) and lower rates of exacerbations. However, further studies will be needed to strengthen the consistency of the results.

Concordance of opinions between patients and physicians and their relationship with symptomatic control and future risk in patients with moderate-severe asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Differences between the opinions of patients and physicians on the impact of asthma are common. We hypothesised that patient-physician discordance may negatively affect asthma outcome. METHODS: A total of 2902 patients (61% women, mean age 47 years) with moderate-severe asthma and 231 physicians participated in a prospective study. At the baseline visit, data on demographics, clinical variables, degree of asthma control according to the Asthma Control Test (ACT), basic spirometry and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were collected and an ad hoc questionnaire was completed that allowed the degree of concordance between doctors and patients to be assessed. A scheduled telephone call after 3 months was used to elicit the ACT score and the future risk of asthma. At the final visit at 6 months, the following data were recorded: ACT score, spirometry, HADS score and an ad hoc questionnaire to assess the agreement between the doctor and the patient. Changes in study variables according to patient-physician concordance or discordance were analysed. RESULTS: The rate of patient-physician discordance was 27.2%, with overestimation of disease impact by the physician in 12.3% and underestimation in 14.9%. Patient-physician opinion discordance, particularly in the case of physicians underestimating the impact of asthma, showed worse results with statistically significant differences in ACT score, a higher percentage of patients with poor asthma control and lower HADS scores. The need for hospital and emergency department admissions was also higher. CONCLUSION: Patient-physician opinion discordance may be contributing to lower symptomatic control and increased future risk, with a higher impact when physicians underestimate the impact of asthma on their patients.