Regular use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) can improve asthma symptoms and prevent exacerbations. However, overall adherence is poor among patients with asthma. Objective To estimate the proportion of poor asthma-related outcomes attributable to ICS nonadherence.
We retrospectively identified 405 adults age 18 to 50 years who had asthma and were members of a large health maintenance organization in southeast Michigan between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001. Adherence indices were calculated by using medical records and pharmacy claims. The main outcomes were the number of asthma-related outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations, as well as the frequency of oral steroid use.
Overall adherence to ICS was approximately 50%. Adherence to ICS was significantly and negatively correlated with the number of emergency department visits (correlation coefficient [ R ] = -0.159), the number of fills of an oral steroid ( R = -0.179), and the total days' supply of oral steroid ( R = -0.154). After adjusting for potential confounders, including the prescribed amount of ICS, each 25% increase in the proportion of time without ICS medication resulted in a doubling of the rate of asthma-related hospitalization (relative rate, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.06-3.79). During the study period, there were 80 asthma-related hospitalizations; an estimated 32 hospitalizations would have occurred were there no gaps in medication use (60% reduction).
Adherence to ICS is poor among adult patients with asthma and is correlated with several poor asthma-related outcomes. Less than perfect adherence to ICS appears to account for the majority of asthma-related hospitalizations.
"Systematic evaluation of ED patients with acute asthma could identify reasons for the ED visits that go beyond acute asthma severity. For example, nonadherence with treatment is a contributor to the poor control in this patient population.9,10 One form of nonadherence is “running out” of inhaled medications, such as inhaled β-agonists or inhaled corticosteroids. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study was designed to determine the percentage of asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits made by patients who recently ran out of their inhaled short-acting beta-agonists or inhaled corticosteroids and to characterize this understudied patient population. A secondary analysis was performed of data from four ED-based multicenter studies of acute asthma during 1996-1998 (n = 64 EDs). In each study, consecutive adult patients, aged 18-54 years, with acute asthma underwent a structured interview that assessed running out of inhaled medications. The analytic cohort comprised 1095 adults. Overall, 324 patients (30%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27-32%) ran out of either of their inhaled beta-agonists or inhaled corticosteroids during the week before their index ED visit; 311 (28%; 95% CI, 26-31%) ran out of inhaled beta-agonists per se. Among a subset of 518 patients on inhaled corticosteroids, 55 patients (11%; 95% CI, 8-14%) ran out of inhaled corticosteroids. In the multivariable model, predictors of running out of an asthma medication were male sex, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, no insurance, lower household income, and use of EDs as the preferred source of asthma prescriptions (all p < 0.05). Among patients who ran out of medications, 49% (95% CI, 43-55%) ran out of inhaled beta-agonists and 72% (95% CI, 58-84%) ran out of inhaled corticosteroids, before onset of their acute asthma symptoms. In 1095 adult ED patients with acute asthma, we found that 30% ran out of their inhaled asthma medications before the ED visit. Asthma patients who ran out of medications had sociodemographic characteristics that may help with identification of preventable ED visits. Multifaceted strategies needed to ensure optimal use of inhaled medications are warranted.
"A plethora of studies have reported about poor adherence to asthma medication treatment [1-4]. As an example, an overall adherence to asthma medication of 22% in a sample of 5,500 persons with asthma was reported in one study . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Poor adherence to asthma medication treatment is a dilemma as it decreases the chance of achieving and maintaining a proper asthma control. Another dilemma is that there seems to be a small range of functional interventions that enhance adherence to long-term medication treatments. The aim was to review the last five years of published educational interventions for improving adherence to asthma medication. Through systematic database searches 20 articles were identified, which matched the inclusion criteria and described educational interventions to improve asthma self-management including adherence. The current review showed that addressing unintentional non-adherence in terms of incorrect inhaler technique by recurrent education improved the technique among many patients, but not among all. Phoning patients, as a means to remove medication beliefs as adherence barriers, seemed to be an effective educational strategy, shown as increased adherence. Involving patients in treatment decisions and individualising or tailoring educational support also seemed to have favourable effect on adherence. To conclude, addressing specific adherence barriers such as poor inhaler technique or medication beliefs could favour adherence. To change adherence behavior, the current review proposes that educational adherence support should be a collaborative effort between the patient and the health-care professional based on each individual patient's needs and patient factors, including elements such as personality traits.
"[p < 0.001] as measured by automatic dose counter) in an open-label 12 week study of mometasone furoate . This is a benefit that has the potential to improve patient outcomes, given the association between poor adherence rates (particularly for controller medications) and uncontrolled asthma in children and adults [8,9], and the reported correlation between falling rates of adherence to ICS and higher rates of asthma-related hospitalization in adults . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Inhaled corticosteroids are the recommended first-line treatment for asthma but adherence to therapy is suboptimal. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily (OD) evening and twice-daily (BD) regimens of the novel inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) in asthma patients.
Patients with moderate asthma (age ≥ 12 years; pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 40-85% predicted; FEV1 reversibility of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 ml) were randomized to FF or fluticasone propionate (FP) regimens in a double-blind, crossover study. Patients were not permitted to have used any ICS for ≥ 8 weeks prior to enrolment and subsequently received doses of FF or FP 200 μg OD, FF or FP 100 μg BD and matching placebo by inhalation for 28 days each. Primary endpoint was Day 28 evening pre-dose (trough) FEV1; non-inferiority of FF 200 μg OD and FF 100 μg BD was assessed, as was superiority of all active treatment relative to placebo. Adverse events (AEs) and 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion were assessed.
The intent-to-treat population comprised 147 (FF) and 43 (FP) patients. On Day 28, pre-dose FEV1 showed FF 200 μg OD to be non-inferior (pre-defined limit -110 ml) to FF 100 μg BD (mean treatment difference 11 ml; 95% CI: -35 to +56 ml); all FF and FP regimens were significantly superior to placebo (p ≤ 0.02). AEs were similar to placebo; no serious AEs were reported. Urinary cortisol excretion at Day 28 for FF was lower than placebo (ratios: 200 μg OD, 0.75; 100 μg BD, 0.84; p ≤ 0.02).
FF 200 μg OD in the evening is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for asthma patients and is not inferior to the same total BD dose.
Respiratory research 12/2011; 12(1):160. DOI:10.1186/1465-9921-12-160 · 3.09 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.