Patient-reported adverse events under asthma therapy: a community pharmacy-based survey

Assessment of A new Strategy to Prevent Prescribing Errors Involving COVID-19 Patients in Community Pharmacies

Background: Because COVID-19 patients are vulnerable to prescribing errors (PEs) and adverse drug events, designing and implementing a new approach to prevent prescribing errors (PEs) involving COVID-19 patients has become a priority in pharmacotherapy research. Objectives: To investigate whether using WhatsApp to deliver prescribing error (PE)-related clinical scenarios to community pharmacists could enhance their ability to detect PEs and conduct successful pharmaceutical interventions (PIs). Methods: In this study, 110 community pharmacies were recruited from different regions across Jordan and equally allocated to 2 groups. Over the course of 4 weeks, WhatsApp was used to send PEs-related clinical case scenarios to the active group. The second group was controlled with no clinical scenarios. After completion of the 4-week phase, pharmacists from both groups were asked to document PEs in COVID-19 patients and their interventions using a data-collection form. Results: The incidence of PEs in COVID-19 patients documented in the active group (18.54%) was higher than that reported in the control group (3.09%) (P = .001). Of the 6598 and 968 PIs conducted by participants working in the active and control group pharmacies, 6013 (91.13%) and 651 (67.25%) were accepted, respectively. The proportions of wrong drug (contraindication), wrong drug (unnecessary drug prescribed/no proof of its benefits), and omission of a drug between the active and control groups were 15.30% versus 7.21% (P = .001), 11.85% versus 6.29% (P = .03), and 17.78% versus 10.50% (0.01), respectively. Additionally, the proportions of lethal, serious, and significant errors were 0.74% versus 0.35% (P = .04), 10.52% versus 2.57% (0.002), and 47.88% versus 9.57% (0.001), respectively. Addition of drug therapy interventions (AOR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.21-0.84) and errors with significant clinical seriousness (AOR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.64). Conclusions PEs involving COVID-19 patients in community settings are common and clinically significant. The intervention assessed in this study could be promising for designing a feasible and time-efficient interventional tool to encourage pharmacists' involvement in identifying and correcting PEs in light of COVID-19.

Fatigue is Highly Prevalent in Patients with Asthma and Contributes to the Burden of Disease

The 2018 update of the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention does not mention fatigue-related symptoms. Nevertheless, patients with asthma frequently report tiredness, lack of energy, and daytime sleepiness. Quantitative research regarding the prevalence of fatigue in asthmatic patients is lacking. This retrospective cross-sectional study of outpatients with asthma upon referral to a chest physician assessed fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength-Fatigue (CIS-Fatigue)), lung function (spirometry), asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)), dyspnea (Medical Research Council (MRC) scale), exercise capacity (six-minute walk test (6MWT)), and asthma-related Quality-of-Life (QoL), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) during a comprehensive health-status assessment. In total, 733 asthmatic patients were eligible and analyzed (47.4 ± 16.3 years, 41.1% male). Severe fatigue (CIS-Fatigue ≥ 36 points) was detected in 62.6% of patients. Fatigue was not related to airflow limitation (FEV1, ρ = -0.083); was related moderately to ACQ (ρ = 0.455), AQLQ (ρ = -0.554), and MRC (ρ = 0.435; all p-values < 0.001); and was related weakly to 6MWT (ρ = -0.243, p < 0.001). In stepwise multiple regression analysis, 28.9% of variance in fatigue was explained by ACQ (21.0%), MRC (6.5%), and age (1.4%). As for AQLQ, 42.2% of variance was explained by fatigue (29.8%), MRC (8.6%), exacerbation rate (2.6%), and age (1.2%). Severe fatigue is highly prevalent in asthmatic patients; it is an important determinant of disease-specific QoL and a crucial yet ignored patient-related outcome in patients with asthma.

Relative exposure to controller therapy and asthma exacerbations: a validation study in community pharmacies

PURPOSE

"Controllers-to-total asthma drug" ratios computed from claims data identify asthmatics at risk of exacerbations. Direct link of ratios to data obtained from patients, such as control and recent outcomes, would facilitate their interpretation. We studied the relationship between R1 ratio (inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/total anti-asthma drug ratio) and the Asthma Control Test. Comparisons were also conducted for secondary outcomes (asthma-related hospital contacts, monthly medical contacts, use of oral corticosteroids, and perception of disease burden). Results with R1 ratio were compared with those obtained with a second ratio, "ICS-plus-leukotriene receptor antagonist/total asthma drug" (R2 = ICS + leukotriene receptor antagonist/total anti-asthma drugs).

METHODS

A survey was conducted in community pharmacies. Patients visiting with a prescription of anti-asthma drug and ≥12 months of drug dispensing recorded in the pharmacy were consecutively recruited. Dispensing data were linked to patient-reported outcomes. Asthma control and secondary outcomes were compared for both ratios between low-controller-ratio (R < 50%) and high-controller-ratio groups (R ≥ 50%), after excluding null values.

RESULTS

Of the 919 eligible patients (mean age 37 years, 55% women), 90.2% and 92.4% had non-null values for R1 and R2, respectively. Compared with the low-controller-ratio groups, adjusted risks of being uncontrolled were significantly lower in the high-controller-ratio groups (RR = 0.64, 95%CI [0.54, 0.77] and RR = 0.57, 95%CI [0.47, 0.70], for R1 and R2 ratios, respectively). Likewise, fewer patients with secondary outcomes were observed in the high-controller-ratio groups, for both ratios.

CONCLUSION

Asthma was better controlled among patients with high controller ratios, along with fewer asthma-related outcomes, for both R1 and R2 ratios. This confirms the utility of asthma/drug ratios in identifying patients at risk of exacerbations, notably in claims data.

The role of community pharmacists in screening and subsequent management of chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the role of community pharmacists in provision of screening with/without subsequent management of undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

An extensive literature search using four databases (ie. Medline, PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) and Scopus) with search terms pharmacy, screening, asthma or COPD was conducted. Searches were limited to the years 2003-2013, those in English and those reporting research with humans. Data retrieval, analysis and result presentation employed a scoping review method.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, of which fifteen studies were based on people with asthma and two were based on people with COPD. Only seven asthma studies and one COPD study involved screening followed by subsequent management. More than half of the people screened were found to be poorly controlled and up to 62% of people were identified at high risk for COPD by community pharmacists. The studies varied in the method and type of asthma control assessment/screening, the type of intervention provided and the outcomes measured. The limitations of the reviewed studies included varying definitions of asthma control, different study methodologies, and the lack of long-term follow-up. While many different methods were used for risk assessment and management services by the pharmacists, all the studies demonstrated that community pharmacists were capable of identifying people with poorly controlled asthma and undiagnosed COPD and providing them with suitable interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature review identified that community pharmacists can play an effective role in screening of people with poorly controlled asthma and undiagnosed COPD along with delivering management interventions. However, there is very little literature available on screening for these chronic respiratory conditions. Future research should focus on development of patient care delivery model incorporating a screening protocol followed by targeted management interventions delivered by the community pharmacist.

Asthma patients' perception of their ability to influence disease control and management

BACKGROUND

Patients' perception of their ability to influence their asthma symptoms has not been sufficiently addressed.

OBJECTIVE

To study the relationship between patients' perceived ability to self-care, as approached by internal locus of control (LOC) orientation, and concomitant level of asthma control.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted from May 19, 2004, through July 7, 2005. Asthma patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids and supervised in primary care were identified. Asthma control was measured with the Asthma Control Test. Patients reported their LOC orientation on a 100-mm visual analog scale (0%, "I have absolutely no influence on asthma change," to 100%, "this change only depends on me"). Asthma therapy was obtained from a prescription database. The risk of an internal LOC of less than 50% was studied.

RESULTS

Among the 163 patients with documented LOC (mean age, 52 years; 58% female), 72 (44.2%) had an internal LOC of less than 50%. Asthma control was inadequate for 65 of the 157 patients with available data on the global score of the Asthma Control Test (41.4%). Patients with inadequately controlled asthma had a higher risk of a LOC of less than 50% (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-5.81). A 3-fold increased risk also appeared for patients older than 65 years compared with those younger than 45 years. Conversely, no association was identified with sex, asthma severity markers, or therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Asthma control was related to internal LOC orientation (ie, perceived ability to self-care). Improved self-care efficiency is a target for adequate disease management.