[Efficacy of Disease Management Programs Asthma and COPD? Results of a Cross-Sectional Study]

BACKGROUND

 The efficacy of the German disease management programs (DMP) asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cannot be shown with the legally bound documentations. Studies with control groups are rare. Aim of this work was to investigate in a cross-sectional study whether the disease control differs in participants (DMP+) and non-participants (DMP - ) of the DMPs asthma and COPD.

METHODS

 The study was a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study. Primary endpoints were the Asthma Control Test™ (ACT) in the asthma part of the study and the COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) for the COPD part.

RESULTS

 A total of 1038 asthma patients and 846 COPD patients were included, of whom about 70 % participated in the corresponding DMP. The ACT total score was higher in asthma DMP+ patients than in DMP- patients (mean difference 0.86; 95 % CI: 0.29 - 1.43;p = 0.003), but not clinically relevant. For COPD there was no clinically relevant difference in COPD disease impact (0.52; 95 % CI: - 0.71 - 1.75; p = 0.405). Although DMP patients had to be enrolled in the respective DMP for at least one year, only 60 % of these patients had participated in a structured education. We did not observe a difference in disease control in DMP patients who respectively participated and did not participate in a structured education.

DISCUSSION

 There was no clinically relevant difference in disease control between DMP+ and DMP- patients. The efficacy of DMPs has been demonstrated internationally in randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials should be conducted in Germany for demonstrating efficacy of DMPs asthma and COPD.

REGISTRATION

 drks.de, DRKS00007664, Registration date: Jan 15, 2015.

Real-life effectiveness of asthma treatment with a fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol pressurised metered-dose inhaler - Results from a non-interventional study

OBJECTIVE

Prospective, non-interventional study of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) across a spectrum of community-based patients with asthma in a real-life setting.

METHODS

In FP/FORM-treated patients aged ≥12 years, asthma control (Asthma Control Test™ [ACT]), incidence of severe exacerbations, lung function, quality of life (asthma quality of life questionnaire [AQLQ]) and adverse events (AEs) were assessed over one year.

RESULTS

Almost 40% (n = 555) of the full analysis population (N = 1410) were receiving ICS/LABA therapy prior to enrolment; 69.8% completed the study. Asthma control (mean ACT ± standard deviation) improved from 16.3 ± 5.0 at baseline to 19.8 ± 4.5 at study end. ACT scores were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher than baseline at all observation timepoints, including the first assessment at 4-6 weeks. The percentage of patients with asthma control increased (baseline: 30.9%; study end: 62.4%), and the percentage of patients with ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation decreased (12 months before: 35.8%; during study: 5.9%). Lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second, peak expiratory flow) improved from baseline to each observation timepoint (p < 0.0001 for all). Improvement in asthma status was accompanied by ameliorated quality of life: AQLQ scores improved significantly from baseline to all observation timepoints (p < 0.0001 for all). AEs accorded with the summary of product characteristics. After study completion, 70% of patients continued FP/FORM treatment.

CONCLUSION

In this one-year study, FP/FORM treatment was associated with clinically relevant improvements in asthma status in a diverse population of patients under real-life conditions.

[Local therapy of grade IIa burns: efficacy and tolerability of a new hydrosome wound gel for the local treatment of grade IIa burns as compared with silver sulfadiazine ointment]

BACKGROUND

A new hydrosome wound gel is based on a new mechanism of action. It contains hydrosomes that penetrate to the wound bed and supply the wound with phospholipids, which are identical to membrane phospholipids of human cells. In this manner it supports the proliferative processes during wound healing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a randomized, controlled, intraindividual comparative study of 47 patients with grade IIa burns, the hydrosome wound gel was tested against silver sulfadiazine cream. Digital pictures of the burn wounds were taken daily, and the wounds were analyzed in terms of their reepithelization rate.

RESULTS

Wounds receiving the hydrosome wound gel healed 1.5-2 days faster than wounds treated with sulfadiazine cream (9.9+/-4.5 days vs. 11.3+/-4.9 days, p=0.015). In 66% of the patients, faster epithelization was observed with the hydrosome wound gel treatment. The hydrosome gel guaranteed secure prophylaxis against infection, and it was well tolerated and easy to apply.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the treatment of grade IIa burn wounds with hydrosome wound gel led to faster wound closure compared with treatment with sulfadiazine cream. Therefore, hydrosome gel represents a good alternative to sulfadiazine cream.