Adherence and usage patterns of inhaled corticosteroids-long-acting beta-agonists by using inhaler-monitoring technology.

Background: Results of previous research indicate that adherence to prescribed inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS-LABA) asthma controller medications is suboptimal, yet actual daily-use patterns are unclear and may be influenced by regimen complexity or dosing frequency. Objective: To investigate real-world use of asthma medications by using inhaler sensors for the ICS-LABA controllers: twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) plus salmeterol (SAL) and once-daily fluticasone furoate (FF) plus vilanterol (VI); and albuterol rescue medication. Methods: This longitudinal, two-phase, observational study included adults with asthma-prescribed FP-SAL (phase I) or FF-VI (phase II), and albuterol metered-dose inhalers. The participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys, and used clip-on inhaler sensors to monitor real-time inhaler use over the 6-month study period. Pharmacy claims data for the 6-month follow-up period were used to assess refills of ICS-LABA and albuterol inhalers. Results: Patients who used twice-daily FP-SAL received a sufficient dose (≥2 actuations/day) approximately one third of the time, those on once-daily FF-VI received a sufficient dose (≥1 actuation/day) ∼60% of the time. Patients who used once-daily FF-VI were more likely to take their medication as prescribed versus those who used twice-daily FP-SAL. There were no significant differences in the percentage of albuterol-free days (FP-SAL, 68.06% [n = 241]; FF-VI, 72.67% [n = 127]; p = 0.230). Exploratory outcomes are reported in this article's Online Supplemental Material. Claims-based measures of adherence were higher than sensor-based measures, hence claims data may have overestimated adherence, whereas sensors may have more accurately measured patients' medication use. Conclusion: These data supported the use of inhaler sensors as tools to directly and accurately measure ICS-LABA adherence and rescue medication use, and the adherence benefits of once-daily versus twice-daily ICS-LABA regimens.

Assessment of the COPD Assessment Test Within U.S. Primary Care.

RATIONALE: Uptake of the COPD Assessment Test (CATTM) is not yet widespread in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) within U.S. primary care and its alignment with other assessments has not been evaluated in U.S. clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the alignment of the CAT with other standard measures of COPD severity and its usability in a U.S. primary care population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational, longitudinal study of patients with COPD and their primary care physicians. Patients with spirometry-confirmed airflow restriction completed a daily electronic diary (eDiary) over 12 weeks; surveys were also administered at baseline and at 6- and 12-week follow-up. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the study population (n=178), statistically significant differences (P<0.05) were found across 4 CAT impact score groups where at all time points patients in the Low Impact CAT score group had superior lung function and physical/mental health status than patients in the Medium, High, and Very High Impact groups. Numerical, though lesser, differences were also found across these latter 3 groups. Furthermore, the average total EXAcerbations of COPD Tool (EXACT®) score was significantly worse in patients in the highest CAT score group over the first 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: COPD severity; respiratory symptoms; frequency, severity, and duration of pulmonary exacerbations; and overall physical and mental health status are linked concurrently and prospectively to CAT impact score categories. The stratification of patients according to CAT impact scores, and application of clinical and functional health status information to these categories, enhances the usability of the CAT in practice settings for COPD management.

Observational vignette study to examine patient and healthcare provider perceived impact of asthma-related exacerbations in the US.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive the impact of asthma-related exacerbations. This study examined the impact of asthma-related exacerbations on patients' lives from these different perspectives. METHODS: Web-based surveys were administered to a US sample of adult patients with asthma, and HCPs. Participants reviewed six vignettes describing two hypothetical patients with asthma (25-year-old/single/unemployed/no dependents; and 45-year-old/married/employed/two young children) experiencing mild, moderate, or severe exacerbations and rated the impact on eight measures: EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), sleep, household costs, and medical costs. The proportions reporting impact for each measure were calculated for each vignette; and patient responses were compared with HCP responses. RESULTS: 302 patients with asthma and 300 HCPs completed the survey. As exacerbation severity increased, a higher proportion of patients and HCPs reported impact of exacerbations on patients with asthma. Compared with HCPs, a greater proportion of patients reported problems with pain/discomfort related to mild and moderate exacerbations. Compared with patients, HCPs were more likely to indicate sleep impact, mobility problems, and financial burden across all exacerbation severity levels; self-care problems with moderate and severe exacerbations; and problems with usual activities and anxiety/depression for severe exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the distinctions between how patients and HCPs perceive the impact of exacerbations is important for optimizing patient care. HCPs may be less aware of patient's concerns about exacerbation-related pain/discomfort. Studies are needed to further understand patient-HCP interactions regarding asthma-related exacerbations.

Cross-sectional survey study to examine underuse of twice daily inhaled maintenance therapy among patients with asthma.

Objective: Anecdotal evidence suggests that some patients with asthma intentionally use their twice-daily (BID) inhaled controller therapy once daily (QD), thus not achieving optimal dosing levels. This study identified the prevalence of and factors associated with intentional QD use of BID-indicated controllers among adult patients with asthma. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey study of adults using inhaled controllers intended for BID dosing for treatment of asthma and/or COPD. Survey responses were linked to administrative claims data for the prior 12 months (baseline). Results of patients indicating both an asthma diagnosis and current intentional QD or BID use of controllers are presented. Results: Of 1401 patients with asthma, 30.9% reported intentional QD use of their controller and 69.1% reported BID use. Intentional QD use was mostly a function of patients' lack of perceived need for BID treatment (44.1%) or physician orders to take their controller QD (34.0%). Patients reporting intentional QD use tended to be healthier (higher health status scores, and lower Charlson comorbidity scores, ambulatory and ER visits, and healthcare costs) with better asthma control (lower asthma-related ER and ambulatory visits and rescue medication use, and higher Asthma Control Test scores) compared with patients reporting BID use. Conclusions: Perceptions regarding health and the necessity of controller use to control or treat asthma were the main drivers of medication-taking behavior. Patients with less severe asthma were more likely to report once daily use of their inhaled controller, but still maintained asthma control.

Shared decision-making for biologic treatment of autoimmune disease: influence on adherence, persistence, satisfaction, and health care costs.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM), a process whereby physicians and patients collaborate to select interventions, is not well understood for biologic treatment of autoimmune conditions. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of adults initiating treatment for Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis (inflammatory bowel disease, IBD) or psoriatic arthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA/PA). Survey data were linked to administrative claims for 6 months before (baseline) and after (follow-up) therapy initiation. Measures included the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, Patient Activation Measure (PAM), Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS), general health, and treatment satisfaction. Claims-based Quan-Charlson comorbidity scores, persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR), and health care costs were examined. Patients were compared by participation (SDM) and nonparticipation (non-SDM) in SDM. RESULTS: Among 453 respondents, 357 were eligible, and 306 patients (204 RA/PA and 102 IBD) were included in all analyses. Overall (n=357), SDM participants (n=120) were more often females (75.0% vs 62.5%, P=0.018), had lower health status (48.0 vs 55.4, P=0.005), and higher Quan-Charlson scores (1.0 vs 0.7, P=0.035) than non-SDM (n=237) participants. Lower MMAS scores (SDM 0.17 vs non-SDM 0.41; P<0.05) indicated greater likelihood of adherence; SDM participants also reported higher satisfaction with medication and had greater activation (PAM: SDM vs non-SDM: 66.9 vs 61.6; P<0.001). Mean MPR did not differ, but persistence was longer among SDM participants (111.2 days vs 102.2 days for non-SDM; P=0.029). Costs did not differ by SDM status overall, or among patients with RA/PA. The patients with IBD, however, experienced lower (P=0.003) total costs ($9,404 for SDM vs $25,071 for non-SDM) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study showed greater likelihood of adherence and satisfaction for patients who engaged in SDM and reduced health care costs among patients with IBD who engaged in SDM. This study provides a basis for defining SDM participation and detecting differences by SDM participation for biologic treatment selection for autoimmune conditions.

Quality of life of HIV-infected patients who switch antiretroviral medication due to side effects or other reasons.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among HIV patients following switch from a first- to second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an observational study of adult HIV patients in the US at 35 academic and community health centers. Patients were required to be switching an antiretroviral regimen for the first time at the enrollment visit. Patients were assigned to a study cohort based on whether the switch was due to treatment-related side effects or for any other reason as reported by their physician. Patients completed the Medical Outcomes Study-Human Immunodeficiency Virus (MOS-HIV) health survey, the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale Short Form (DASS-21), and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-status (HIVTSQs) at the enrollment visit (baseline) and a follow-up survey was completed approximately 4 weeks later. The within cohort change in survey measures from baseline to follow-up was assessed by two-sample paired t-test. RESULTS: Patients who switched their ART regimen due to treatment-related side effects (n = 50) had statistically significant improvements (p < .05, baseline to follow-up) in mean Physical and Mental Health Summary scores (MOS-HIV scale) and in all three HIVTSQ summary scores. Patients who switched for other reasons (n = 44) did not experience statistically significant improvements in these same measures. CONCLUSIONS: HIV patients whose regimen was switched due to treatment-related side effects experienced an improvement in QOL following the switch. Physicians should take the potential impact on QOL into consideration when deciding on a switch in ART regimen, particularly when patients are intolerant of their current treatment. The results are based on a patient survey and may have been influenced by recall and response bias.

Application of the new GOLD COPD staging system to a US primary care cohort, with comparison to physician and patient impressions of severity.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the traditional Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) COPD spirometry-based severity classification system was revised to also include exacerbation history and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC) scores. This study examined how COPD patients treated in primary care are reclassified by the new GOLD system compared to the traditional system, and each system's level of agreement with patient's or physician's severity assessments. METHODS: In this US multicenter cross-sectional study, COPD patients were recruited by 83 primary care practitioners (PCPs) to complete spirometry testing and a survey. Patients were classified by the traditional spirometry-based system (stages 1-4) and under the new system (grades A, B, C, D) using spirometry, exacerbation history, mMRC, and/or CAT results. Concordance between physician and patient-reported severity, spirometry stage, and ABCD grade based on either mMRC or CAT scores was examined. RESULTS: Data from 445 patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD were used. As compared to the traditional system, the GOLD mMRC system reclassifies 47% of patients, and GOLD CAT system reclassifies 41%, but the distributions are very different. The GOLD mMRC system resulted in relatively equal distributions by ABCD grade (33%, 22%, 19%, 26%, respectively), but the GOLD CAT system put most into either B or D groups (9%, 45%, 4%, and 42%). The addition of exacerbation history reclassified only 19 additional patients. Agreement between PCPs' severity rating or their patients' self-assessment and the new ABCD grade was very poor (κ=0.17 or less). CONCLUSION: As compared to the traditional system, the GOLD 2011 multidimensional system reclassified nearly half of patients, but how they were reclassified varied greatly by whether the mMRC or CAT questionnaire was chosen. Either way, the new system had little correlation with the PCPs or their patients' impressions about the COPD severity.