Randomised evaluation of the Italian medicines use review provided by community pharmacists using asthma as a model (RE I-MUR)

Background The Italian Ministry of Health decided to introduce community professional services in 2010. This trial provides an opportunity to evaluate the outcomes of a new professional pharmacy service: Italian Medicines Use Review (I-MUR) aimed at reducing the severity of asthma and its associated costs. Methods/Design This is a cluster randomised controlled trial of the I-MUR service. Data will be collected over time before, during and after pharmacists’ intervention. Fifteen Italian regions will be involved and it is aimed to recruit 360 community pharmacists and 1800 patients. Each pharmacist will receive training in medicines use review, recruit five patients, administer the Asthma Control Test and provide the I-MUR service. Pharmacists will be allocated to different groups, one group will be trained in and provide the I-MUR service immediately after completion of the baseline ACT score, the other group will receive training in the I-MUR and provide this service three months later. Group allocation will be random, after stratification by region of Italy. The I-MUR service will involve gathering data following each patient consultation including demographic details, patients regular medications, including those used for asthma, their attitude towards their medications and self-reported adherence to treatments. In addition, pharmacists will identify and record pharmaceutical care issues and any advice given to patients during the I-MUR, or recommendations given to doctors. Pharmacists will upload trial data onto a web platform for analysis. The primary outcome measure is the severity of asthma before, during and after the I-MUR assessed using the Asthma Control Test score. Secondary measures: number of all active ingredients used by patients during and after the I-MUR, number of pharmaceutical care issues identified during the I-MUR, patients’ self-reported adherence to asthma medication during and after the I-MUR, healthcare costs based on the severity of asthma, before, during and after the I-MUR service provision. Discussion This study has been developed because of the need for a new way of working for pharmacists and pharmacies; it is the first trial of any community pharmacy-based pharmaceutical care intervention in Italy. The results will inform future policy and practice in Italian community pharmacy. Trial registration number ISRCTN72438848. Keywords Asthma – Medicines use review – Cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) – Community pharmac

Can environment or allergy explain international variation in prevalence of wheeze in childhood?

Asthma prevalence in children varies substantially around the world, but the contribution of known risk factors to this international variation is uncertain. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Phase Two studied 8–12 year old children in 30 centres worldwide with parent-completed symptom and risk factor questionnaires and aeroallergen skin prick testing. We used multilevel logistic regression modelling to investigate the effect of adjustment for individual and ecological risk factors on the between-centre variation in prevalence of recent wheeze. Adjustment for single individual-level risk factors changed the centre-level variation from a reduction of up to 8.4% (and 8.5% for atopy) to an increase of up to 6.8%. Modelling the 11 most influential environmental factors among all children simultaneously, the centre-level variation changed little overall (2.4% increase). Modelling only factors that decreased the variance, the 6 most influential factors (synthetic and feather quilt, mother’s smoking, heating stoves, dampness and foam pillows) in combination resulted in a 21% reduction in variance. Ecological (centre-level) risk factors generally explained higher proportions of the variation than did individual risk factors. Single environmental factors and aeroallergen sensitisation measured at the individual (child) level did not explain much of the between-centre variation in wheeze prevalence

Cámaras de inhalación: ¿ alternativa al inhalador convencional ?

Los inhaladores en aerosol constituyen la forma de administración de medicación más empleada por la mayoría de los enfermos con patología respiratoria, aunque su mala utilización es un hecho demostrado en muchos trabajos. Un estudio previo demostró que, a pesar de una instrucción correcta del personal sanitario y de los pacientes, el 30% de los mismos los utilizaba de forma incorrecta. En el presente trabajo se valora la eficacia de las cámaras de inhalación (750 ml) y espaciadores (50 ml) frente al inhalador convencional, mediante cuantificación de la respuesta broncodilatadora. Resultados: Se comprobó que los pacientes que utilizaban erróneamente el inhalador se beneficiaban, de forma significativa, con cualquiera de los procedimientos. Al comparar las cámaras (750 ml) con los espaciadores (50 ml) se observó una mejoría significativa con aquéllas. Conclusiones: Los enfermos que no utilizan correctamente los IA mejoran de forma significativa la respuesta al tratamiento broncodilatador al utilizar alguno de estos dos sistemas, de los cuales el de cámara es el que ofrece mejores resultados