DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.
STUDY SELECTION: All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.
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: A computer-based SG (CBSG) tool was developed using Microsoft® PowerPoint 2007 to value asthma-specific health states in Malaysia. Eight hypothetical health states were considered, including two anchor states (healthy and dead), three chronic (C) states and three temporary (T) states (each numbered 1 through 3, with increasing severity) in addition to the subject's current health state. Twenty adult asthma patients completed the CBSG tool in addition to paper-based Asthma Control Test, three health status measures (EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ)), and VAS utility assessment tool. Patients and interviewers rated the difficulty of the VAS and CBSG tools. Correlations between current health state values derived from the various measures were determined.
RESULTS: The SG and the VAS received similar difficulty ratings. 17 patients completed the CBSG tool within 30 minutes. The mean utilities determined by the CBSG tool for the T1-T3 asthma health states met the expected logical order of 1>2>3, but those for the C1-C3 states did not. Correlation between current health state values derived from the CBSG tool and other measurement tools was poor.
CONCLUSION: The CBSG tool developed for measuring utilities of asthma health states showed acceptable feasibility and overall validity.
METHODS: Questionnaire-based data was gathered from internal medicine doctors (209), general practitioners (206), chest physicians (152) and pediatricians (58) from 232 locations from across the five countries.
RESULTS: Of the 816 physicians, 374 physicians encountered at least 5 asthma patients daily. Approximately, 38% physicians always used spirometry for diagnosis and only 12% physicians always recommended Peak flow meter (PFM) for home-monitoring. Salmeterol/fluticasone (71%) followed by formoterol/budesonide (38%) were the most preferred ICS/long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA); Salbutamol (78%) was the most preferred reliever medication. 60% physicians said >40% of their patients were apprehensive to use inhalers. 72% physicians preferred a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) to a dry powder inhaler (DPI) with only a third of them using a spacer with the pMDI. 71% physicians believed that using similar device for controller and reliever can be beneficial to patients. Skipping medicines in absence of symptoms (64%), incorrect inhaler technique (48%) and high cost of medication (49%) were considered as major reasons for non-adherence by most physicians. Incorrect inhaler technique (66%) and nonadherence (59%) were considered the most common causes of poor asthma control.
CONCLUSIONS: There are opportunities to improve the use of diagnostic and monitoring tools for asthma. Non-adherence, incorrect inhaler technique and cost remain a challenge to achieve good asthma control. Asthma education, including correct demonstration of inhaler, can potentially help to improve inhaler adherence.
METHODS: The translation of the English version of the valid 10-item TAI questionnaire into BM was followed by subjecting it to a series of tests establishing factorial, concurrent and known group validities. Concurrent validity was assessed through Spearman's rank correlation coefficient against pharmacy refill-based adherence scores. Known group validity was assessed by cross-tabulation against asthma symptom control and using chi-square test. The internal consistency of the test scale was determined by a test-retest method using Cronbach's alpha (α) value and intraclass correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: A total of 120 adult asthma patients participated in the study. A 2-factor structure was obtained and confirmed with acceptable fit indices; CFI, NFI, IFI, TLI >0.9 and, RMSEA was 0.08. The reliability of the scale was 0.871. The test-retest reliability coefficient for the total sum score was 0.832 (p 85%.
CONCLUSIONS: The scale successfully translated into BM and validated. The 10-item TAI-BM appears fit for use in testing inhaler adherence of Malaysian patients with asthma.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluating group of selective oxidative stress markers as a tool in the management of asthma disease.
METHODS: In comparison with matched healthy controls, levels of the oxidant and antioxidant markers: lipid peroxidation malondialdehyde (MDA), Total glutathione (tGSH), Uric acid (UA), Glutathione peroxidase (GPx), Catalase (CAT) superoxide dismutase (SOD), and Total antioxidant capacity (TAC) were assessed in serum and saliva of different asthma groups.
RESULTS: All oxidative markers in serum and saliva of asthma patients showed significant alterations from normal healthy controls (P 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Determination of the oxidative markers GPx, CAT, UA in serum or saliva can distinguish asthma from healthy states. The serum levels of UA and TAC are highly effective in monitoring asthma severity, while the salivary GPx, CAT, UA, MDA are beneficial in the management of childhood asthma. Discrimination of the age factor between asthma groups can be achieved by testing GPx, SOD, TAC in serum.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the PIFR at resistance settings that matched Turbuhaler® in patients with acute exacerbation of asthma.
METHODOLOGY: A six-month cross-sectional study was conducted at the Emergency Department (ED) of Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah and Hospital Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia. Adult patients diagnosed with mild to moderate acute exacerbations of asthma were recruited. The PIFRs were measured using the In-Check DIAL G16 that was set to simulate the resistance of Turbuhaler® (R3). The PIFRs were assessed before (pre) and after (post) the initial bronchodilator (BD) treatment at the ED. The minimal required PIFR was defined as flow rates ≥ 30 L/min while a PIFR of 60 L/min was considered as optimal.
RESULTS: A total of 151 patients (81 females and 70 males) were recruited. The mean age was 37.5 years old with a range between 18 and 79 years old. The results showed that 98% (n = 148) of patients managed to achieve the minimal PIFR required for pre-BD. The mean PIFR pre-BD was 60 ± 18.5 L/min and post-BD was 70 ± 18.5 L/min. Furthermore, more than half (54%, n = 82) of the patients recorded PIFR ≥ 60 L/min during pre-BD, and about three-quarters (71%, n = 92) achieved PIFR ≥ 60 L/min post-BD. The PIFR showed a moderate correlation with peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (r = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.43-0.65, p
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6-11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.
RESULTS: A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP (n = 8, INB, -6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I2=86.18%) and SP (n = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I2=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6-11 years from the HCPP in LMICs (n = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I2=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION: The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.