[Digital action plan for asthma exacerbations (PANAME)]

Digital Action Plan (Web App) for Managing Asthma Exacerbations: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

A written action plan (WAP) for managing asthma exacerbations is recommended.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the effect on unscheduled medical contacts (UMCs) of a digital action plan (DAP) accessed via a smartphone web app combined with a WAP on paper versus that of the same WAP alone.

METHODS

This randomized, unblinded, multicenter (offline recruitment in private offices and public hospitals), and parallel-group trial included children (aged 6-12 years) or adults (aged 18-60 years) with asthma who had experienced at least 1 severe exacerbation in the previous year. They were randomized to a WAP or DAP+WAP group in a 1:1 ratio. The DAP (fully automated) provided treatment advice according to the severity and previous pharmacotherapy of the exacerbation. The DAP was an algorithm that recorded 3 to 9 clinical descriptors. In the app, the participant first assessed the severity of their current symptoms on a 10-point scale and then entered the symptom descriptors. Before the trial, the wordings and ordering of these descriptors were validated by 50 parents of children with asthma and 50 adults with asthma; the app was not modified during the trial. Participants were interviewed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months to record exacerbations, UMCs, and WAP and DAP use, including the subjective evaluation (availability and usefulness) of the action plans, by a research nurse.

RESULTS

Overall, 280 participants were randomized, of whom 33 (11.8%) were excluded because of the absence of follow-up data after randomization, leaving 247 (88.2%) participants (children: n=93, 37.7%; adults: n=154, 62.3%). The WAP group had 49.8% (123/247) of participants (children: n=45, 36.6%; mean age 8.3, SD 2.0 years; adults: n=78, 63.4%; mean age 36.3, SD 12.7 years), and the DAP+WAP group had 50.2% (124/247) of participants (children: n=48, 38.7%; mean age 9.0, SD 1.9 years; adults: n=76, 61.3%; mean age 34.5, SD 11.3 years). Overall, the annual severe exacerbation rate was 0.53 and not different between the 2 groups of participants. The mean number of UMCs per year was 0.31 (SD 0.62) in the WAP group and 0.37 (SD 0.82) in the DAP+WAP group (mean difference 0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.24; P=.82). Use per patient with at least 1 moderate or severe exacerbation was higher for the WAP (33/65, 51% vs 15/63, 24% for the DAP; P=.002). Thus, participants were more likely to use the WAP than the DAP despite the nonsignificant difference between the action plans in the subjective evaluation. Median symptom severity of the self-evaluated exacerbation was 4 out of 10 and not significantly different from the symptom severity assessed by the app.

CONCLUSIONS

The DAP was used less often than the WAP and did not decrease the number of UMCs compared with the WAP alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02869958; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02869958.

Digital interventions to improve adherence to maintenance medication in asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic lung condition worldwide, affecting 334 million adults and children globally. Despite the availability of effective treatment, such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), adherence to maintenance medication remains suboptimal. Poor ICS adherence leads to increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalisations, and healthcare utilisation. Importantly, suboptimal use of asthma medication is a key contributor to asthma deaths. The impact of digital interventions on adherence and asthma outcomes is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of digital interventions for improving adherence to maintenance treatments in asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 1 June 2020, with no restrictions on language of publication. A further search was run in October 2021, but studies were not fully incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster- and quasi-randomised trials of any duration in any setting, comparing a digital adherence intervention with a non-digital adherence intervention or usual care. We included adults and children with a clinical diagnosis of asthma, receiving maintenance treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures for data collection. We used GRADE to assess quantitative outcomes where data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and children with asthma (n = 15,207), of which eight are ongoing studies. Of the included studies, 30 contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. The total number of participants ranged from 18 to 8517 (median 339). Intervention length ranged from two to 104 weeks. Most studies (n = 29) reported adherence to maintenance medication as their primary outcome; other outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life were also commonly reported. Studies had low or unclear risk of selection bias but high risk of performance and detection biases due to inability to blind the participants, personnel, or outcome assessors. A quarter of the studies had high risk of attrition bias and selective outcome reporting. We examined the effect of digital interventions using meta-analysis for the following outcomes: adherence (16 studies); asthma control (16 studies); asthma exacerbations (six studies); unscheduled healthcare utilisation (four studies); lung function (seven studies); and quality of life (10 studies). Pooled results showed that patients receiving digital interventions may have increased adherence (mean difference of 14.66 percentage points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.74 to 21.57; low-certainty evidence); this is likely to be clinically significant in those with poor baseline medication adherence. Subgroup analysis by type of intervention was significant (P = 0.001), with better adherence shown with electronic monitoring devices (EMDs) (23 percentage points over control, 95% CI 10.84 to 34.16; seven studies), and with short message services (SMS) (12 percentage points over control, 95% CI 6.22 to 18.03; four studies). No significant subgroup differences were seen for interventions having an in-person component versus fully digital interventions, adherence feedback, one or multiple digital components to the intervention, or participant age. Digital interventions were likely to improve asthma control (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31 higher, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) - a small but likely clinically significant effect. They may reduce asthma exacerbations (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.91; low-certainty evidence). Digital interventions may result in a slight change in unscheduled healthcare utilisation, although some studies reported no or a worsened effect. School or work absence data could not be included for meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity in reporting and the low number of studies. They may result in little or no difference in lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁)): there was an improvement of 3.58% predicted FEV₁, 95% CI 1.00% to 6.17%; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this is unlikely to be clinically significant as the FEV₁ change is below 12%. Digital interventions likely increase quality of life (SMD 0.26 higher, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.45; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this is a small effect that may not be clinically significant. Acceptability data showed positive attitudes towards digital interventions. There were no data on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. Our confidence in the evidence was reduced by risk of bias and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, digital interventions may result in a large increase in adherence (low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence that digital adherence interventions likely improve asthma control to a degree that is clinically significant, and likely increase quality of life, but there is little or no improvement in lung function. The review found low-certainty evidence that digital interventions may reduce asthma exacerbations. Subgroup analyses show that EMDs may improve adherence by 23% and SMS interventions by 12%, and interventions with an in-person element and adherence feedback may have greater benefits for asthma control and adherence, respectively. Future studies should include percentage adherence as a routine outcome measure to enable comparison between studies and meta-analysis, and use validated questionnaires to assess adherence and outcomes.