The misuse of asthma drugs

More than a decade follow-up in patients with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma: The Epidemiology and Natural History of Asthma: Outcomes and Treatment Regimens (TENOR) II

BACKGROUND

The Epidemiology and Natural History of Asthma: Outcomes and Treatment Regimens (TENOR I) study demonstrated high morbidity in patients with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma despite standard-of-care treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the long-term natural history of disease and outcomes in patients in TENOR I after more than a decade.

METHODS

TENOR I was a multicenter observational study (2001-2004) of 4756 patients with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma. TENOR II was a follow-up study of TENOR I patients using a single cross-sectional visit in 2013/2014. Overall, the sites participating in TENOR II originally enrolled 1230 patients in TENOR I. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were assessed, including very poorly controlled asthma based on National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 341 (27.7%) patients were enrolled in TENOR II and were representative of the TENOR I cohort. The most frequent comorbidities were rhinitis (84.0%), sinusitis (47.8%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (46.3%). Mean percent predicted prebronchodilator and postbronchodilator FEV₁ were 72.7% (SD, 21.4%) and 78.2% (SD, 20.7%), respectively. A total of 231 (72.9%) of 317 patients had positive test responses to 1 or more allergen-specific IgEs. The mean blood eosinophil count was 200/μL (SD, 144/μL). Eighty-eight (25.8%) patients experienced an asthma exacerbation in the prior 3 months requiring hospital attention, oral corticosteroids, or both. More than half (197/339 [58.1%]) had very poorly controlled asthma. Medication use suggested undertreatment.

CONCLUSION

TENOR II provides longitudinal data to characterize disease progression, heterogeneity, and severity in patients with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma. Findings show continued morbidity, including a high degree of comorbid conditions, allergic sensitization, exacerbations, and very poorly controlled asthma, including reduced lung function.

[Therapeutic adherence in asthma in France: A general review]

INTRODUCTION

Adherence in asthma is a paramount issue of disease management. A general review of the French publications on this topic has been conducted.

METHODS

Research equations used for bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Science Direct, Banque de données en santé publique, Cochrane and Cairn.info) comprised the following keywords: "asthma", "therapeutic adherence" and "France". These publications unrelated to asthma, focused on asthma management without exploring adherence, or those conducted in populations without French patients were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 82 articles have been selected (36 surveys, 4 randomized trials and 42 reviews/syntheses). Whatever the methodology used and publication year, the inadequate therapeutic adherence in asthma was steadily reported, notably for controllers and the quality of use of inhaled devices.

CONCLUSION

The present review highlights the sustainability of adherence-related issues in asthma and the need to improve patients' knowledge on asthma and the finality of therapy. It also highlights the need of an improved communication between patients and physicians is also advocated. Further studies with more recent data are desirable to assess changes in disease management of asthma and the impact of potential future corrective interventions.

The Danish National Database for Asthma: establishing clinical quality indicators

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide affecting more than 300 million people. Symptoms are often non-specific and include coughing, wheezing, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. Asthma may be highly variable within the same individual over time. Although asthma results in death only in extreme cases, the disease is associated with significant morbidity, reduced quality of life, increased absenteeism, and large costs for society. Asthma can be diagnosed based on report of characteristic symptoms and/or the use of several different diagnostic tests. However, there is currently no gold standard for making a diagnosis, and some degree of misclassification and inter-observer variation can be expected. This may lead to local and regional differences in the treatment, monitoring, and follow-up of the patients. The Danish National Database for Asthma (DNDA) is slated to be established with the overall aim of collecting data on all patients treated for asthma in Denmark and systematically monitoring the treatment quality and disease management in both primary and secondary care facilities across the country. The DNDA links information from population-based disease registers in Denmark, including the National Patient Register, the National Prescription Registry, and the National Health Insurance Services register, and potentially includes all asthma patients in Denmark. The following quality indicators have been selected to monitor trends: first, conduction of annual asthma control visits, appropriate pharmacological treatment, measurement of lung function, and asthma challenge testing; second, tools used for diagnosis in new cases; and third, annual assessment of smoking status, height, and weight measurements, and the proportion of patients with acute hospital treatment. The DNDA will be launched in 2016 and will initially include patients treated in secondary care facilities in Denmark. In the nearby future, the database aims to include asthma diagnosis codes and clinical data registered by general practitioners and specialised practitioners as well.