Perceptions on Home-Administration of Biologics in the Context of Severe Asthma: An International Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Biologics are an effective therapy for severe asthma. Home administration of biologics by patients is likely to facilitate their accessibility. Yet little is known about patients' and health care providers' (HCPs) perceptions regarding home administration of biologics. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to create more insight into the perceptions and experiences of patients and HCPs regarding home administration of biologics in the context of the treatment of severe asthma. METHODS: A qualitative international study was performed in the Netherlands, United States, Australia, and United Kingdom. In each country, 2 focus groups were held with potential/recent and long-term users of biologics at home. Prior to the focus groups, patients were prompted with themes on online forums. For triangulation purposes, interviews were held with HCPs to discuss salient findings from forums and focus groups. Data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 75 patients participated in the forums, of which 40 participated in the focus groups. Furthermore, 12 HCPs were interviewed. The following overarching themes were identified: living with severe asthma; practical aspects of using biologics; the role of HCPs regarding biologics; social support from family, friends, and others; effectiveness of biologics and other treatments; side effects of biologics. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that, for those using biologics for severe asthma, the benefits of home administration of biologics usually outweigh inconvenience and side effects. Guided practice, accessible support contact, and monitoring including social support should be central in the transition from hospital to home administration of asthma biologics.

The Cognitive Online Self-Test Amsterdam (COST-A): Establishing norm scores in a community-dwelling population.

BACKGROUND: Heightened public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and dementia increases the need for at-home cognitive self-testing. We offered Cognitive Online Self-Test Amsterdam (COST-A) to independent groups of cognitively normal adults and investigated the robustness of a norm-score formula and cutoff. METHODS: Three thousand eighty-eight participants (mean age ± standard deviation = 61 ± 12 years, 70% female) completed COST-A and evaluated it. Demographically adjusted norm scores were the difference between expected COST-A scores, based on age, gender, and education, and actual scores. We applied the resulting norm-score formula to two independent cohorts. RESULTS: Participants evaluated COST-A to be of adequate difficulty and duration. Our norm-score formula was shown to be robust: ≈8% of participants in two cognitively normal cohorts had abnormal scores. A cutoff of -1.5 standard deviations proved optimal for distinguishing normal from impaired cognition. CONCLUSION: With robust norm scores, COST-A is a promising new tool for research and clinical practice, providing low cost and minimally invasive remote assessment of cognitive functioning.