Search

Asthma patients are under-represented among patients with COVID-19. Their behavior during lockdown and associated restrictions is unknown, as well as whether it was influenced by coexistent cardiovascular conditions. We conducted a cross-sectional survey in May 2020, in France, nested in ComPaRe, an e-cohort of adults with chronic diseases. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 10,859 people; 3701 fully completed questionnaires. The prevalence of self-reported asthma was 7%. Patients were classified in 4 categories: asthma with (n = 106) or without (n = 149) cardiovascular disease and other diseases with (n = 1186) or without (n = 2260) cardiovascular disease. Adherence to movement restrictions during the lockdown was very strong: 89% of participants reported a frequency of outings of "less than once per week" and "once or twice per week" for errands and no family-related outings during the lockdown. This proportion and frequency of outings were similar whatever the chronic disease (p = 0.122). Most patients (96%) reported a high feeling of security during the lockdown, but 95% felt anxious or depressed, with no difference by disease. As compared with patients with controlled asthma, those with uncontrolled asthma more frequently reported complaints related to deteriorated medical follow-up, waived care, anxiety or depression. Behaviors during the lockdown in France among the asthma population did not differ from patients with other chronic diseases in this cohort, which strengthens hypotheses for specific disease-related susceptibility to explain the low representation of asthmatics among COVID-19 cases. Special attention should be paid to the subgroup of patients with uncontrolled asthma during lockdowns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In asthma, treatment effectiveness is strongly influenced by the quality of inhaler use. New devices such as Spiromax® have been specifically developed to improve ease of use. It is crucial to determine whether switching to such a device improves inhaler technique and clinical outcomes, and to identify factors associated with handling errors. Methods: This observational study assessed inhaler device handling errors in 1435 asthma patients recruited via 135 participating physicians in France, before and after switching therapy from the Symbicort Turbuhaler® or Seretide® Diskus® to DuoResp® Spiromax®. Patients received training in the use of their new device at baseline and were re-assessed after three months. Results: After three months of use, 67% of patients were using the DuoResp® Spiromax® with no handling errors, and 88% with no critical errors. The presence of comorbidities was associated with handling errors overall. Concurrent illness potentially affecting device handling and previous training were associated with critical device handling errors. Most patients (85.4%) preferred DuoResp® Spiromax® over their previous device. Levels of inadequately controlled or uncontrolled asthma were reduced from baseline among patients using DuoResp® Spiromax® (8.6% versus 64.6%), and were higher in patients with critical handling errors. Conclusions: Effective patient education, correct inhaler technique, treatment adherence and devices associated with high patient satisfaction are interrelated factors key to the successful delivery of inhaled asthma therapy. Inhaler technique and patient device satisfaction should be routinely assessed in treated patients with uncontrolled asthma. Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Adherence and inhaler technique are often suboptimal in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New inhalers have been developed to improve these determinants of treatment effectiveness. We assessed treatment adherence, satisfaction, and ease of use of DuoResp® Spiromax® among SPRINT study participants. Methods: The Phase IV SPRINT study was conducted in 10 European countries. Asthma and COPD patients were receiving a fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), delivered via various inhalers including DuoResp Spiromax. DuoResp Spiromax users self-assessed adherence using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8®), and ease of use and satisfaction using 10-point scales, during a single physician's office visit. Results: Of 1661 (asthma: n = 1101; COPD: n = 560) SPRINT study participants, 342 (asthma: n = 235; COPD: n = 107) received DuoResp Spiromax prior to inclusion. Overall, 72.5% of DuoResp Spiromax users reported medium or high adherence (MMAS-8 score ≥6). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) satisfaction score for DuoResp Spiromax was 8.9 (1.6). Almost all (98.8%) DuoResp Spiromax users were at least satisfied with their inhaler; 85.4% were very satisfied. Mean (SD) ease of use score for DuoResp Spiromax was 9.1 (1.3). Conclusions: Asthma and COPD patients using DuoResp Spiromax reported moderate-to-high medication adherence, were very satisfied with their inhaler and found it easy to use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are required to assess and train patients in the correct use of inhalers but are often unable to demonstrate correct technique themselves. We sought to assess the level of training required for HCPs to master and maintain device mastery when using two different dry powder inhalers (DPIs).Methods: We conducted a randomized, un-blinded, crossover study in undergraduate HCPs who undertook a six-step training procedure (intuitive use, patient information leaflet, instructional video, individual tuition from expert, then two repeats of individual tuition) for the use of Turbuhaler® (an established device) and Spiromax® (a newer device, reportedly easier to use). Device mastery (absence of errors) was evaluated by expert assessors at each training step. Maintenance of mastery was assessed 4 ± 1 week (visit 2) and 8 ± 2 weeks (visit 3) after initial training (visit 1).Results: Of 516 eligible participants, 113 (22%) demonstrated device mastery prior to training on Spiromax® compared with 20 (4%) on Turbuhaler® (p< 0.001). The median number of training steps required to achieve mastery was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2–4) for Spiromax® and 3 (IQR 2–4) for Turbuhaler® (p< 0.001). A higher number of participants maintained mastery with Spiromax® compared with Turbuhaler®, at visits 2 and 3 (64% vs 41% and 79% vs 65%, respectively;p< 0.001).Conclusions: There are significant differences in the nature and extent of training required to achieve and maintain mastery for Spiromax® and Turbuhaler® devices. The implications on clinical practice, device education delivery, and patient outcomes require further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: Current asthma guidelines recommend use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with persistent disease. This study was designed to investigate (1) the proportion of patients prescribed ICS-containing maintenance treatment who achieve asthma control, (2) determinants of control and (3) how physicians adapt treatment to the level of control.Methods: General practitioners (GPs) and chest physicians (CPs) in France recruited patients consulting for asthma and prescribed an ICS. Over a 2-year follow-up period, asthma symptoms in the previous 3 months and treatments prescribed were documented at each visit. Variables independently associated with asthma control were determined by multiple logistic regression.Results: Data were available for 924 patients recruited by GPs and 455 recruited by CPs. Asthma control was acceptable in only 24% of patients at inclusion, and in 33.6% at the last follow-up visit. Five factors were independently associated with asthma control: age (or time since diagnosis), gender, smoking status, allergic aetiology of asthma and treatment. Most patients (56.3%) were prescribed the same ICS dose regimen at the end of follow-up as at inclusion. The intensity of controller therapy had been increased in only 12.2% of patients unacceptably controlled at inclusion.Conclusions: Asthma was unacceptably controlled in most patients receiving ICS-containing maintenance treatment and remained so during follow-up. Despite this, treatment adaptations by GPs and CPs were very infrequent. This unsatisfactory situation may be improved by adopting a more dynamic approach to tailoring controller therapy to the needs of the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]