Recommendations from a Canadian Delphi consensus study on best practice for optimal referral and appropriate management of severe asthma

The Path to Diagnosis of Severe Asthma-A Qualitative Exploration

Purpose

Severe asthma poses a significant health burden in those with the disease, therefore a timely diagnosis can ensure patients receive specialist care and appropriate medication management. This study qualitatively explored the patient experience of adult Australians with severe asthma regarding specialist referral, to identify potential opportunities to streamline the process of severe asthma diagnosis and treatment and optimise referral pathways.

Patients and Methods

Adults currently being treated with medication for severe asthma were invited to participate in this study. Participants were interviewed and asked to describe initial diagnosis of their asthma or severe asthma, and how they came to be referred to secondary care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded by two members of the research team and thematically analysed.

Results

Thirty-two people completed the study; 72% were female. Mean interview length was 33 minutes. The major themes generated were patient-related factors contributing to seeking a severe asthma diagnosis; perceptions of health care provision; diagnosis of severe asthma and the referral journey. Key findings were that both patient and healthcare provider attitudes contributed to participants' willingness to seek or receive a referral, and referral to respiratory specialists was often delayed. Contributing factors included a mismatch between patient expectations and general practice, lack of continuity of primary care, and a lack of patient understanding of the role of the respiratory specialist.

Conclusion

Timely severe asthma diagnosis in Australia appears to be hampered by an absence of a clear referral process, lack of general practitioner (GP) knowledge of additional treatment options, underutilisation of pharmacists, and multiple specialists treating patient comorbidities. Directions for future research might include interviewing healthcare providers regarding how well the referral process works for severe asthma patients, and researching the time between referral and when a patient sees the respiratory specialist.

A survey of severe asthma in Canada: results from the CASCADE practice reflective program

BACKGROUND

Since the last guidance was published by the Canadian Thoracic Society, there have been several advances in the clinical management of severe asthma. To gain a better understanding of the current standards of care and treatment patterns of patients, the CASCADE practice reflective program was established to conduct a real-world analysis of severe asthma management among specialists in Canada with a goal of identifying areas of opportunity to enhance patient management and outcomes.

METHODS

The CASCADE program was a two-part practice reflective and assessment program delivered through an on-line portal for selected specialists (Respirologists and Allergists) in Canada. The program consisted of a one-time overview survey of physician practice to establish overall practice parameters, followed by a review of at least 5 severe asthma patients to establish the current landscape of severe asthma management.

RESULTS

The program collected practice overview surveys from 78 specialists (52 Respirologists, 24 Allergists, and 2 General practice physicians with an interest in respiratory disease) in 8 provinces. Practices included a variety of types in both large metropolitan centres and smaller regional settings. There were 503 patients reviewed and included in the program. Most (65%) patients were currently using a biologic treatment, 30% were biologic naive, and 5% had used a biologic treatment in the past. Most patients (53%) were reported to have mixed allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes, despite a perception that allergic, eosinophilic and mixed phenotypes were evenly balanced in the physician practice. Overall, patients currently treated with biologic agents had parameters suggesting higher control and were more satisfied with treatment. However, there was less than optimal treatment satisfaction for more than half of all patients, particularly for those patients not treated with a biologic agent.

CONCLUSIONS

Phenotyping is hampered by poor availability for several assessments, and the full range of treatments are not currently fully utilized, partly due to physician familiarity with the agents and partly due to prescribing restrictions. Even when treated with biologic agents, patient satisfaction can still be improved.

Real-world outcomes of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma in Canada: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab, the first widely available anti-interleukin 5 biologic, targets eosinophilic inflammation and has been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations, oral corticosteroid dependence, and healthcare utilization in patients with severe asthma. The impact of mepolizumab in a real-world, publicly funded healthcare setting is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe the demographics and clinical characteristics of real-world patients receiving mepolizumab, and to compare asthma-related outcomes and associated asthma-related costs before and during mepolizumab use.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study in Ontario, Canada, included patients initiating mepolizumab between February 2016 and March 2019. Patients were identified using the mepolizumab patient support program and linked to the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences database of publicly accessed healthcare. Patient outcomes were obtained for 12 months pre- and post-mepolizumab initiation and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients were enrolled in the overall patient support program cohort (mean [standard deviation] age 57.6 [13.5] years, mean [standard deviation] of the median per-patient eosinophil count 540.4 [491.9] cells/μL). Mepolizumab was associated with reductions in asthma exacerbations (46.1%, P < 0.001) and in the number of asthma-related visits to general practitioners (40.2%, P < 0.001), specialists (27.2%, P < 0.001), and emergency departments (52.1%, P < 0.001). Associated costs were significantly lower post- versus pre-mepolizumab for asthma-related general practitioner and specialist visits, and for all-cause emergency department visits and hospital admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world population of Canadian patients with severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype, the use of mepolizumab within a patient support program reduced asthma exacerbations and decreased asthma-related healthcare resource utilization and associated costs.

Pharmacoequity in Allergy-Immunology: Disparities in Access to Medications for Allergic Diseases and Proposed Solutions in the United States and Globally

Pharmacoequity is the principle that individuals should have access to high-quality medications regardless of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or availability of resources. In this review, we summarize access to therapeutics for allergic diseases in the United States and other selected countries. We focus on domains of health care access (health insurance coverage, medication availability, and specialist access) as well as system-level factors and clinician- and patient-level factors such as interpersonal racism and cultural beliefs, and how they can affect timely access to appropriate therapy for allergic diseases. Finally, we propose how pharmacoequity in allergy-immunology can be achieved by highlighting solutions to factors limiting access to medications for allergic diseases, and identify potential future research directions.

Consensus goals and standards for specialist cough clinics: the NEUROCOUGH international Delphi study

Background

Current guidelines on the management of chronic cough do not provide recommendations for the operation of specialist cough clinics. The objective of the present study was to develop expert consensus on goals and standard procedures for specialist cough clinics.

Methods

We undertook a modified Delphi process, whereby initial statements proposed by experts were categorised and presented back to panellists over two ranking rounds using an 11-point Likert scale to identify consensus.

Results

An international panel of 57 experts from 19 countries participated, with consensus reached on 15 out of 16 statements, covering the aims, roles and standard procedures of specialist cough clinics. Panellists agreed that specialist cough clinics offer optimal care for patients with chronic cough. They also agreed that history taking should enquire as to cough triggers, cough severity rating scales should be routinely used, and a minimum of chest radiography, spirometry and measurements of type 2 inflammatory markers should be undertaken in newly referred patients. The importance of specialist cough clinics in promoting clinical research and cough specialty training was acknowledged. Variability in healthcare resources and clinical needs between geographical regions was noted.

Conclusions

The Delphi exercise provides a platform and guidance for both established cough clinics and those in planning stages.