A Cross-Sectional Survey on Medication Management Practices for Noncommunicable Diseases in Europe During the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Maintaining healthcare for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) is particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, diversion of resources to acute care, and physical distancing restrictions markedly affected management of NCDs. We aimed to assess the medication management practices in place for NCDs during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic across European countries. In December 2020, the European Network to Advance Best practices & technoLogy on medication adherencE (ENABLE) conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey in 38 European and one non-European countries. Besides descriptive statistics of responses, nonparametric tests and generalized linear models were used to evaluate the impact on available NCD services of the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Fifty-three collaborators from 39 countries completed the survey. In 35 (90%) countries face-to-face primary-care, and out-patient consultations were reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The mean ± SD number of available forms of teleconsultation services in the public healthcare system was 3 ± 1.3. Electronic prescriptions were available in 36 (92%) countries. Online ordering and home delivery of prescription medication (avoiding pharmacy visits) were available in 18 (46%) and 26 (67%) countries, respectively. In 20 (51%) countries our respondents were unaware of any national guidelines regarding maintaining medication availability for NCDs, nor advice for patients on how to ensure access to medication and adherence during the pandemic. Our results point to an urgent need for a paradigm shift in NCD-related healthcare services to assure the maintenance of chronic pharmacological treatments during COVID-19 outbreaks, as well as possible future disasters

Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delays Clinically Important Deterioration Compared with Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Early COPD:a Post Hoc Analysis of the TONADO® Trials

Introduction Since chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition, a composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration (CID) may provide a more holistic assessment of treatment efficacy. We compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium alone using a composite endpoint for CID. CID was evaluated overall and in patients with low exacerbation history (at most one moderate exacerbation in the past year [not leading to hospitalisation]), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2 patients and maintenance-naive patients with COPD. We assessed whether early treatment optimisation is more effective with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in delaying and reducing the risk of CID. Methods Data were analysed from 2055 patients treated with either tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mu g or tiotropium 5 mu g (delivered via Respimat(R)) in two replicate, 52-week, parallel-group, double-blind studies (TONADO(R) 1/2). CID was defined as a decline of at least 0.1 L from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, increase from baseline of at least 4 units in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, or moderate/severe exacerbation. Time to first occurrence of one of these events was recorded as time to first CID. Results Overall, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol significantly increased the time to, and reduced the risk of, CID versus tiotropium (median time to CID 226 versus 169 days; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]; P <0.0001). Significant reductions were also observed in patients with low exacerbation history (241 versus 170; HR 0.73 [0.64, 0.83]; P <0.0001), GOLD 2 patients (241 versus 169; 0.72 [0.61, 0.84]; P <0.0001) and maintenance-naive patients (233 versus 171; 0.75 [0.62, 0.91]; P = 0.0030). Conclusion In patients with COPD, including patients with low exacerbation history, GOLD 2 patients and maintenance-naive patients, tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of CID versus tiotropium. These results demonstrate the advantages of treatment optimisation with tiotropium/olodaterol over tiotropium monotherapy. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY COPD is a complicated disease that deteriorates over time. Worsening of COPD is associated with the lungs working less effectively, a fall in quality of life and a rise in sudden flare-ups of the disease. In this study, we looked at lung function, quality of life and flare-ups together using a measure called "clinically important deterioration" (CID). We looked at 2055 people with COPD to compare the effects of taking two bronchodilators (tiotropium and olodaterol) against taking one bronchodilator (tiotropium alone). Bronchodilators are a type of inhaled medication that relax the muscles in the lungs and widen airways, making it easier to breathe. They have also been shown to reduce sudden flare-ups of COPD. Across a wide range of people with COPD, we found that treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of a CID compared with tiotropium alone. This includes in those patients at an early stage of disease, who may benefit from finding the best treatment option for them as early as possible

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy

Factors associated with health status and exacerbations in COPD maintenance therapy with dry powder inhalers

Funding Information: J.K. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim; grants and personal fees from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals and TEVA; grants from Mundipharma; personal fees from MSD and COVIS Pharma; and also holds 72.5% of shares in the General Practitioners Research Institute. H.W. has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, which is the financial and scientific partner of GPRI for the submitted study, and from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Chiesi for scientific projects in the area of COPD/asthma. S.B.-A. has received grants from TEVA, and personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi and Mylan. J.C.d.S. reports or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medinfar, Mundipharma and Sanofi. B.C. received honorarium from GSK and Sanofi. J.v.C., L.D., I.v.G.-P., I.v.d.H., Y.J., M.K., B.M., K.S., N.S., M.H., B.M. and M.T.L. were employed by General Practitioners Research Institute (GPRI) at the time of the study. In the past three years (2019–2021), GPRI conducted investigator- and sponsor-initiated research funded by non-commercial organizations, academic institutes, and pharmaceutical companies (including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Teva). R.D. has received grants and personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Chiesi, Focus Care, and Glenmark. R.G. has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK and Chiesi. E.D. holds 27.5% of shares in the General Practitioners Research Institute. M.G.P. receives grants from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim. A.G. and A.d.l.H. are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. F.L. received grants and personal fees from GSK, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini International, Novartis, Orion, and Trudell International, outside the submitted work. T.M. is an Assoicate Editor at npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. J.M. received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; and grants from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, and GSK, outside the submitted work. D.P. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Theravance and Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); grants from the British Lung Foundation, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, UK National Health Service, and AKL Research and Development Ltd; personal fees from Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Merck, Mundipharma, Airway Vista Secretariat, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, FIECON Ltd, Fieldwork International, OM Pharma SA, PeerVoice, Phadia AB, Spirosure Inc, Strategic North Limited, Synapse Research Management Partners S.L., Talos Health Solutions, and WebMD Global LLC; non-financial support from Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and Health Technology Assessment; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); and 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology. M.R.-R. receives grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, TEVA and BIAL. I.T. reports grants and personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini, Novartis, Chiesi and Elpen. O.U. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edmond Pharma, Chiesi and GSK; grants from Edmond Pharma; and personal fees from Napp, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Takeda, Cipla, COVIS, Novartis, Mereobiopharma, Orion, and Menarini. S.B.-A. and T.M. are Associate Editors at npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, and I.T. is Editor in Chief. These authors were not involved in the journal’s review of, or decisions related to, this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

目次

Contains fulltext : 154215.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) monitors control of asthma and allergic rhinitis. AIMS: To determine the CARAT's minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dutch CARAT. METHODS: CARAT was applied in three measurements at 1-month intervals. Patients diagnosed with asthma and/or rhinitis were approached. MCID was evaluated using Global Rating of Change (GRC) and standard error of measurement (s.e.m.). Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate internal consistency. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated between CARAT, the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) on airway symptoms to determine construct and longitudinal validity. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Changes in pollen counts were compared with delta CARAT and ACQ5 scores. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were included. The MCID of the CARAT was 3.50 based on GRC scores; the s.e.m. was 2.83. Cronbach's alpha was 0.82. Correlation coefficients between CARAT and ACQ5 and VAS questions ranged from 0.64 to 0.76 (P < 0.01). Longitudinally, correlation coefficients between delta CARAT scores and delta ACQ5 and VAS scores ranged from 0.41 to 0.67 (P < 0.01). Test-retest reliability showed an ICC of 0.81 (P < 0.01) and 0.80 (P < 0.01). Correlations with pollen counts were higher for CARAT than for ACQ5. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first investigation of the MCID of the CARAT. The CARAT uses a whole-point scale, which suggests that the MCID is 4 points. The CARAT is a valid and reliable tool that is also applicable in the Dutch population

Patient-centered digital biomarkers for allergic respiratory diseases and asthma: The ARIA-EAACI approach – ARIA-EAACI Task Force Report

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of-life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed

Behavioural Patterns in Allergic Rhinitis Medication in Europe: A Study Using MASK‐Air ® Real‐World Data

Background: Co-medication is common among patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), but its dimension and patterns are unknown. This is particularly relevant since AR is understood differently across European countries, as reflected by rhinitis-related search patterns in Google Trends. This study aims to assess AR co-medication and its regional patterns in Europe, using real-world data. Methods: We analysed 2015-2020 MASK-air® European data. We compared days under no medication, monotherapy and co-medication using the visual analogue scale (VAS) levels for overall allergic symptoms ('VAS Global Symptoms') and impact of AR on work. We assessed the monthly use of different medication schemes, performing separate analyses by region (defined geographically or by Google Trends patterns). We estimated the average number of different drugs reported per patient within 1 year. Results: We analysed 222,024 days (13,122 users), including 63,887 days (28.8%) under monotherapy and 38,315 (17.3%) under co-medication. The median 'VAS Global Symptoms' was 7 for no medication days, 14 for monotherapy and 21 for co-medication (p < .001). Medication use peaked during the spring, with similar patterns across different European regions (defined geographically or by Google Trends). Oral H1 -antihistamines were the most common medication in single and co-medication. Each patient reported using an annual average of 2.7 drugs, with 80% reporting two or more. Conclusions: Allergic rhinitis medication patterns are similar across European regions. One third of treatment days involved co-medication. These findings suggest that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms (irrespective of how they understand AR) and that co-medication use is driven by symptom severity.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio