Standardized Clinical Guideline for Assessment, Documentation, and Treatment of Statins

The purpose of this project was to develop a practice guideline for screening patients at risk for cardiovascular disease, educate the staff at the site about the guideline, and implement the guideline at a primary care clinic. The intention was to identify and treat patients at risk for cardiovascular disease to prevent occurrence of heart disease. Cardiovascular disease includes hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke. Coronary heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in the Western world. The local practice problem and focus of this project was underprescribed statin therapy for patients at risk for developing heart disease at a clinic in the southern United States. The practice-focused question that guided this project explored whether an evidence-based clinical guideline that might impact the prescription of statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease would be approved for implementation in a primary care clinic serving adult and geriatric patients. The appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation and the Fineout-Overholt model were used to guide this project. Sources of evidence to meet the purpose of this project were obtained from the literature and scholarly articles. The results of the presentation to the expert panel indicated that this clinical practice guideline would be implemented at the project site and would be used by nurse practitioners and physicians. The implications of this project for positive social change might include improved management of patients who are at risk for heart disease and a decrease in premature deaths related to cardiovascular disease

Improved adherence with once-daily versus twice-daily dosing of mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler: a randomized open-label study

Background Poor adherence with prescribed asthma medication is a major barrier to positive treatment outcomes. This study was designed to determine the effect of a once-daily administration of mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI) on treatment adherence compared with a twice-daily administration. Methods This was a 12-week open-label study designed to mimic an actual clinical setting in patients ≥12 years old with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Patients were randomized to receive MF-DPI 400 μg once-daily in the evening or MF-DPI 200 μg twice-daily. Adherence was assessed primarily using the number of actual administered doses reported from the device counter divided by the number of scheduled doses. Self-reports were also used to determine adherence. Health-related quality of life, healthcare resource utilization, and days missed from work or school were also reported. Results 1233 patients were randomized. The mean adherence rates, as measured by the automatic dose counter, were significantly better (P < 0.001) with MF-DPI 400 μg once-daily in the evening (93.3%) than with MF-DPI 200 μg twice-daily (89.5%). Mean adherence rates based on self-reports were also significantly better (P < 0.001) with MF-DPI 400 μg QD PM (97.2%) than with MF-DPI 200 μg twice-daily (95.3%). Adherence rates were lower in adolescents (12-17 years old). Health-related quality of life improved by 20% in patients using MF-DPI once-daily in the evening and by 14% in patients using MF-DPI twice-daily. Very few (<8%) patients missed work/school. Conclusion Mean adherence rates were greater with a once-daily dosing regimen of MF-DPI than with a twice-daily dosing regimen. This trial was completed prior to the ISMJE requirements for trial registration

Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Despite its proven efficacy in improving symptoms and reducing exacerbations, many patients with asthma are not fully adherent to their steroid inhaler. Suboptimal adherence leads to poorer clinical outcomes and increased health service utilisation, and has been identified as a contributing factor to a third of asthma deaths in the UK. Reasons for non-adherence vary, and a variety of interventions have been proposed to help people improve treatment adherence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions intended to improve adherence to inhaled corticosteroids among people with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 18 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel and cluster randomised controlled trials of any duration conducted in any setting. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data. We included trials of adults and children with asthma and a current prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) (as monotherapy or in combination with a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA)). Eligible trials compared an intervention primarily aimed at improving adherence to ICS versus usual care or an alternative intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the searches, extracted study characteristics and outcome data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were adherence to ICS, exacerbations requiring at least oral corticosteroids and asthma control. We graded results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all using a random-effects model. We described skewed data narratively. We made no a priori assumptions about how trials would be categorised but conducted meta-analyses only if treatments, participants and the underlying clinical question were similar enough for pooling to make sense. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and children with asthma, 28 of which (n = 16,303) contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. Follow-up ranged from two months to two years (median six months), and trials were conducted mainly in high-income countries. Most studies reported some measure of adherence to ICS and a variety of other outcomes such as quality of life and asthma control. Studies generally were at low or unclear risk of selection bias and at high risk of biases associated with blinding. We considered around half the studies to be at high risk for attrition bias and selective outcome reporting.We classified studies into four comparisons: adherence education versus control (20 studies); electronic trackers or reminders versus control (11 studies); simplified drug regimens versus usual drug regimens (four studies); and school-based directly observed therapy (three studies). Two studies are described separately.All pooled results for adherence education, electronic trackers or reminders and simplified regimens showed better adherence than controls. Analyses limited to studies using objective measures revealed that adherence education showed a benefit of 20 percentage points over control (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.52 to 32.74; five studies; low-quality evidence); electronic trackers or reminders led to better adherence of 19 percentage points (95% CI 14.47 to 25.26; six studies; moderate-quality evidence); and simplified regimens led to better adherence of 4 percentage points (95% CI 1.88 to 6.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence). Our confidence in the evidence was reduced by risk of bias and inconsistency.Improvements in adherence were not consistently translated into observable benefit for clinical outcomes in our pooled analyses. None of the intervention types showed clear benefit for our primary clinical outcomes - exacerbations requiring an oral corticosteroid (OCS) (evidence of very low to low quality) and asthma control (evidence of low to moderate quality); nor for our secondary outcomes - unscheduled visits (evidence of very low to moderate quality) and quality of life (evidence of low to moderate quality). However, some individual studies reported observed benefits for OCS and use of healthcare services. Most school or work absence data were skewed and were difficult to interpret (evidence of low quality, when graded), and most studies did not specifically measure or report adverse events.Studies investigating the possible benefit of administering ICS at school did not measure adherence, exacerbations requiring OCS, asthma control or adverse events. One study showed fewer unscheduled visits, and another found no differences; data could not be combined. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pooled results suggest that a variety of interventions can improve adherence. The clinical relevance of this improvement, highlighted by uncertain and inconsistent impact on clinical outcomes such as quality of life and asthma control, is less clear. We have low to moderate confidence in these findings owing to concerns about risk of bias and inconsistency. Future studies would benefit from predefining an evidence-based 'cut-off' for acceptable adherence and using objective adherence measures and validated tools and questionnaires. When possible, covert monitoring and some form of blinding or active control may help disentangle effects of the intervention from effects of inclusion in an adherence trial

ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF EAST ASIA: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

Japan). This Report was prepared under Project GP/1100-98-11. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any state, territory, city or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The document contains the views expressed by the author acting in his individual capacity and may not necessarily reflect the views of UNEP

Quantification of Aerosol Hydrofluoroalkane HFA-134a Elimination in the Exhaled Human Breath Following Inhaled Corticosteroids Administration

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and β2‐agonists are the primary pharmacotherapies of asthma management. However, suboptimal medication compliance is common in asthmatics and is associated with increased morbidity. We hypothesized that exhaled breath measurements of the aerosol used in the inhaled medications might prove useful as surrogate marker for asthma medication compliance. To explore this, 10 healthy controls were recruited and randomly assigned to ICS (Flovent HFA) or short acting bronchodilators (Proventil HFA). Both inhalers contain HFA‐134a as aerosol propellant. Exhaled breath sampling and pulmonary function tests were performed prior to the inhaler medication dispersion, immediately after inhalation, then at 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, and 48 hours postadministration. At baseline, mean (SD) levels of HFA‐134a in the breath were 252 (156) pptv. Immediately after inhalation, HFA‐134a breath levels increased to 300 × 10(6) pptv and were still well above ambient levels 24 hours postadministration. The calculated ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second over forced vital capacity did not change over time following inhaler administration. This study demonstrates, for the first time, that breath HFA‐134a levels can be used to assess inhaler medication compliance. It may also be used to evaluate how effectively the medicine is delivered