METHODS: An online/face-to-face, questionnaire-based survey of respiratory specialists and primary care physicians from eight Asian countries/region was carried out. The survey explored asthma control, inhaler selection, technique and use; physician-patient communications and asthma education. Inclusion criteria were >50% of practice time spent on direct patient care; and treated >30 patients with asthma per month, of which >60% were aged >12 years.
RESULTS: REALISE Asia (Phase 2) involved 375 physicians with average 15.9(±6.8) years of clinical experience. 89.1% of physicians reporting use of guidelines estimated that 53.2% of their patients have well-controlled (GINA-defined) asthma. Top consideration for inhaler choice was asthma severity (82.4%) and lowest, socio-economic status (32.5%). Then 54.7% of physicians checked their patients' inhaler techniques during consultations but 28.2(±19.1)% of patients were using their inhalers incorrectly; 21.1-57.9% of physicians could spot improper inhaler techniques in video demonstrations. And 79.6% of physicians believed combination inhalers could increase adherence because of convenience (53.7%), efficacy (52.7%) and usability (18.9%). Initial and follow-up consultations took 16.8(±8.4) and 9.2(±5.3) minutes, respectively. Most (85.1%) physicians used verbal conversations and least (24.5%), video demonstrations of inhaler use; 56.8% agreed that patient attitudes influenced their treatment approach.
CONCLUSION: Physicians and patients have different views of 'well-controlled' asthma. Although physicians informed patients about asthma and inhaler usage, they overestimated actual usage and patients' knowledge was sub-optimal. Physician-patient interactions can be augmented with understanding of patient attitudes, visual aids and ancillary support to perform physical demonstrations to improve treatment outcomes.
METHODS: Consecutive participants aged 18 years or older with a primary diagnosis of asthma, allergic rhinitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or rhinosinusitis were enrolled. Participants completed a survey detailing respiratory symptoms, HCRU, work productivity and activity impairment, and HRQOL. Locally sourced unit costs for each country were used in the calculation of total costs.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 5250 patients. Overall, the mean annual cost for patients with a respiratory disease was US $4191 (SGD 8489) per patient. For patients who reported impairment at work, the mean annual cost was US $7315 (SGD 10,244), with productivity loss being the highest cost component for all four diseases (US $6310 [SGD 9100]). On average, patients were impaired for one-third of their time at work and 5% of their work time missed because of respiratory disease, which resulted in a 36% reduction in productivity. Patients with a primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had the greatest impact on HRQOL.
CONCLUSIONS: In the Asia-Pacific, respiratory diseases have a significant impact on HCRU and associated costs, along with work productivity. Timely and effective management of these diseases has the potential to reduce disease burden and health care costs and improve work productivity and HRQOL.