Measuring adherence to inhaled control medication in patients with asthma: Comparison among an asthma app, patient self-report and physician assessment.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of using an asthma app to support medication management and adherence but failed to compare with other measures currently used in clinical practice. However, in a clinical setting, any additional adherence measurement must be evaluated in the context of both the patient and physician perspectives so that it can also help improve the process of shared decision making. Thus, we aimed to compare different measures of adherence to asthma control inhalers in clinical practice, namely through an app, patient self-report and physician assessment. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of three prospective multicentre observational studies with patients (≥13 years old) with persistent asthma recruited from 61 primary and secondary care centres in Portugal. Patients were invited to use the InspirerMundi app and register their inhaled medication. Adherence was measured by the app as the number of doses taken divided by the number of doses scheduled each day and two time points were considered for analysis: 1-week and 1-month. At baseline, patients and physicians independently assessed adherence to asthma control inhalers during the previous week using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS 0-100). RESULTS: A total of 193 patients (72% female; median [P25-P75] age 28 [19-41] years old) were included in the analysis. Adherence measured by the app was lower (1 week: 31 [0-71]%; 1 month: 18 [0-48]%) than patient self-report (80 [60-95]) and physician assessment (82 [51-94]) (p < 0.001). A negligible non-significant correlation was found between the app and subjective measurements (ρ 0.118-0.156, p > 0.05). There was a moderate correlation between patient self-report and physician assessment (ρ = 0.596, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence measured by the app was lower than that reported by the patient or the physician. This was expected as objective measurements are commonly lower than subjective evaluations, which tend to overestimate adherence. Nevertheless, the low adherence measured by the app may also be influenced by the use of the app itself and this needs to be considered in future studies.

Confirmatory Evaluation of the Modified Medical Research Council Questionnaire for Assessment of Dyspnea in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Portugal.

INTRODUCTION: The Modified British Medical Research Council Questionnaire is considered an adequate and simple measure of breathlessness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is widely used in clinical practice in Portugal, but it still lacks confirmatory evaluation for the Portuguese setting. The aim of this study was to perform a cultural adaptation and validation of the Modified British Medical Research Council Questionnaire so that its most suitable version can be made available to researchers and clinicians in Portugal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional descriptive study involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease aged 40 years or older. We applied the Modified British Medical Research Council Questionnaire and the previously validated Portuguese-language version of the clinical questionnaire for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between January and June 2019. We determined the agreement between the two questionnaires with kappa agreement, with a 95% confidence interval, and we used Spearman correlation to find a correlation between two scores. RESULTS: The study included 65 patients managed in a hospital pulmonology clinic (aged 68 ± 7 years; with predicted FEV1 of 49.86% ± 16.5%). The Modified British Medical Research Council scale correlated significantly with all the domains and the overall score of the clinical questionnaire for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.46 < r < 0.68; p < 0.001). In bilingual patients, interclass correlation coefficient was 0.912 (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Our study showed that the Portuguese-language version of the Modified British Medical Research Council Questionnaire is feasible and externally valid when compared with a traditional and previously validated instrument. CONCLUSION: The Portuguese version of the Modified British Medical Research Council Questionnaire is a valid instrument for measurement of breathlessness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Introdução: O Questionário British Medical Research Council (mMRC) Modificado é considerado um instrumento adequado e simples para a medição da dispneia na doença pulmonar obstrutiva crónica (DPOC). Tem sido amplamente usado na prática clínica em Portugal, mas carece de avaliação confirmatória para o cenário português. O objetivo deste estudo é realizar a adaptação cultural e validação do Questionário British Medical Research Council Modificado para que a versão mais adequada possa estar disponível a investigadores e clínicos em Portugal. Material e Métodos: Realizamos um estudo descritivo e transversal com doentes com doença pulmonar obstrutiva crónica e idade ≥ 40 anos. Aplicamos o Questionário British Medical Research Council Modificado e o questionário clínico para a doença pulmonar obstrutiva crónica previamente validado para a língua portuguesa, entre janeiro e junho de 2019. Determinámos a concordância entre os dois questionários com kappa agreement, com 95% de intervalo de confiança, e usámos o coeficiente de correlação de Spearman para determinar a correlação entre os dois scores. Resultados: O estudo incluiu 65 doentes seguidos em consulta hospitalar de Pneumologia (idades de 68 ± 7 anos; com FEV1 49,86% ± 16,5% do predito). A Escala Modificada do British Medical Research Council correlacionou-se significativamente com todos os domínios e pontuação total do questionário clínico (0,46 < r < 0,68; p < 0,001). Nos doentes bilingues, o coeficiente de correlação interclasse foi 0,912 (p < 0,001). Discussão: O nosso estudo mostrou que a versão portuguesa do Questionário Modificado do British Medical Research Council apresenta exequibilidade e validade externa quando comparado com um instrumento tradicional e previamente validado. Conclusão: A versão portuguesa do Questionário Modificado do British Medical Research Council é um instrumento válido para a medição da dispneia na doença pulmonar obstrutiva crónica.

Family Physicians' Perspectives on Their Role in Palliative Care: A Double Focus Group in Portugal.

BACKGROUND: Aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the provision of palliative care for patients with palliative care needs emerges as a necessity more than ever. Most are managed in primary care by their family physicians (FP). This study aimed to understand the perspectives of specialist and trainee FPs about their role in palliative care. METHODS: we conducted a double focus-group study consisting of two separate online focus-groups, one with FP specialists (n = 9) and one with FP trainees (n = 10). RESULTS: FPs already gather two fundamental skills for the provision of palliative care: the capacity to identify patients' needs beyond physical symptoms and the recognition that the patient belongs to a familiar, psychosocial, and even spiritual environment. They perceive their role in palliative care to be four-fold: early identification of patients with palliative care needs, initial treatment, symptom management, and patient advocacy. Participants recognized the need for palliative care training and provided suggestions for training programs. CONCLUSION: FPs share a holistic approach and identify multiple roles they can play in palliative care, from screening to care and advocacy. Organizational barriers must be addressed. Short training programs that combine theory, practice, and experiential learning may further the potential for FPs to contribute to palliative care.

Misdosing of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Prescription patterns of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are unknown among primary care physicians, where most patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are diagnosed and followed up. The goal of this study was to evaluate overdosing and underdosing of NOACs in patients with NVAF followed up in primary care and determine their clinical predictors. METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study included all patients with NVAF followed up in 13 primary care units in the center region of Portugal. Patients receiving antithrombotic regimens other than NOACs and patients with missing data were excluded. FINDINGS: The study included 858 patients with NVAF on an NOAC regimen. Overall, 30.3% were prescribed an off-label dosage (25.4% with infratherapeutic dosing [ITD] and 4.9% with supratherapeutic dosing). Chronic kidney disease (odds ratio, 14.0; 95% CI, 5.4-36.5; P < 0.001) and female sex (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7; P < 0.001) were independent predictors of supratherapeutic dosing. We also found a significant effect of chronic kidney disease on ITD (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.258-0.678; P < 0.001). IMPLICATIONS: In primary care, NOACs are frequently prescribed with unadjusted dosages, generally infratherapeutic. Attention should be paid to women and patients with chronic kidney disease.