Peak Inspiratory Flow Measured at Different Inhaler Resistances in Patients with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients' peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) may help clinicians select an inhaler device. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with asthma who could generate correct PIFRs at different inhaler resistance settings. METHODS: During a UK asthma review service, patients' PIFR was checked at resistance settings matching their current preventer inhaler device, at R5 (high-resistance dry powder inhaler [DPI]) and at R0 (low resistance, pressurized metered dose inhaler [pMDI]). Correct PIFR ("pass") was defined for R5 as 30 to 90 L/min and for R0 as 20 to 60 L/min. A logistic regression model examined the independent predictors of incorrect PIFR ("fail") at R5 and R0. Asthma severity was assessed retrospectively from treatment level. RESULTS: A total of 994 adults (females 64.3%) were included, of whom 90.4% currently used a preventer inhaler (71.5% pMDI). PIFR pass rates were 93.7% at R5 compared with 70.5% at R0 (P < .0001). All patients failing the R0 PIFR breathed in too fast (>60 L/min), and 20% of patients currently using pMDI failed for this reason. Independent risk factors for failing R5 were female sex, older age group, and current preventer pMDI and for failing R0 included male sex, younger age group, current preventer DPI, and mild versus severe asthma. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that most patients with asthma can achieve adequate inspiratory flow to activate high-resistance DPIs, whereas approximately a third of patients breathe in too fast to achieve recommended inspiratory flows for correct pMDI use, including one-fifth of patients who currently use a pMDI preventer.

Implementation of a computer-guided consultation in the assessment of suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome.

BACKGROUND: We describe implementation of a clinical decision support system, a computer-guided consultation (CGC), in the assessment of subjects referred with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS). METHODS: Two cohorts of patients were assessed. The first 100 cases had data collected with the CGC by a specialist sleep physician (stage1). A further 100 cases were assessed by a nonspecialist using the CGC (stage 2). For each case, the diagnosis suggested by the CGC was compared with the final diagnosis made by a second specialist sleep physician blinded to the CGC diagnosis. RESULTS: Stage 1: of 100 people evaluated, a final diagnosis of OSAS was made by both the sleep specialist and CGC in 88% of cases. In 7 of the remaining 12 cases, both agreed there was "No evidence of OSAS"; in 5 cases the CGC did not reach a final diagnosis instead prompting specialist referral. Stage 2: 100 people were evaluated; 95% were evaluable. Both CGC and the sleep specialist made a diagnosis of OSAS in 83 cases (87%), in 5 cases both agreed there was no OSAS, whereas in 7 cases the CGC prompted a specialist review due to unexplained symptoms. The CGC was concordant with the final diagnosis in 95% and 93% of cases in the two cohorts, respectively and where there was doubt, prompted for clinical review. No OSAS cases were overlooked by the CGC. CONCLUSION: An intelligent CGC program creates opportunities in sleep medicine management pathways to safely yet effectively utilise nonspecialists working under specialist supervision.

A review of asthma care in 50 general practices in Bedfordshire, United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom (UK) National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) (2011-2014) identified a number of contributory risk factors which had not previously been recognized by those caring for people with asthma. Only one of the 19 NRAD recommendations has so far been implemented nationally, and that only partially, and as yet systems are not in place to identify patients at risk of attacks and dying from asthma. In 2015/2016 Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in England, UK, initiated a quality asthma audit of people with asthma to identify some of the risk factors identified in the NRAD report with the aim of optimizing patient care. Fifty (89%) of the General Practices caring for 415,152 patients (27,587 diagnosed with asthma (prevalence 7%; range 4-12%)), participated and the results identified a wide variation in process of care and presence of risk factors including: excess short acting reliever and insufficient preventer prescriptions, failure to issue personal asthma action plans, and to perform annual reviews or check inhaler technique. Identification of these patients involved high-intensity input by trained asthma nurses using sophisticated data extraction software. GP computer systems used in primary care currently do not have the functionally, without the need for manual audit, to implement the NRAD recommendations, starting with the identification of patients at risk. Modifications to existing systems within both primary and secondary care are required in order to prevent unnecessary deaths related to asthma. There is a pressing need to move towards a more pro-active model of care.

A retrospective cohort study in severe asthma describing commonly measured biomarkers: Eosinophil count and IgE levels.

BACKGROUND: Identifying asthma patients suitable for biologic therapy includes the assessment of blood biomarkers (IgE and eosinophils (EOS)). How they relate to each other is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective, database study used routinely collected clinical data to identify and evaluate an asthma cohort (classification code for asthma; ≥ 18 years; ≥1 prescription for asthma; ≥1 estimation of serum IgE, in 2 years prior to index date). Distribution into high and low IgE and EOS groups (IgE cut-point: > or ≤75 kU/L; EOS cut point: >or ≤400 µ/L), and characteristics by group are described. FINDINGS: In patients with severe asthma (British Thoracic Society Step (BTS) ≥4; N = 884), using maximum recorded IgE/EOS, 33% had high IgE/high EOS, 28% low IgE/low EOS and approximately a fifth each had high IgE/low EOS or low IgE/high EOS. Proportions were similar when EOS values measured 2 or 4 weeks before an exacerbation were excluded. Using EOS/IgE 'same day' measurements (N = 578) only identified half of the high EOS group. Patients in high IgE groups were more likely to be younger males without comorbid COPD; those in high EOS groups were more likely to be on BTS treatment Step 5 vs 4. The low IgE/low EOS group had the lowest incidence of asthma-related hospital attendances, the highest incidence was observed in the high EOS groups. CONCLUSION: Maximum available EOS measurement irrespective of exacerbations may be relevant when considering therapy. These data showed low IgE/Low EOS to be more benign and high EOS groups at increased risk of frequent, severe exacerbations.

Characterisation of the frequent exacerbator phenotype in COPD patients in a large UK primary care population.

BACKGROUND: The 'frequent exacerbator' is recognised as an important phenotype in COPD. Current understanding about this phenotype comes from prospective longitudinal clinical trials in secondary/tertiary care with little information reported in primary care populations. AIMS: To characterize the frequent-exacerbator phenotype and identify associated risk factors in a large UK primary care COPD population. METHODS: Using a large database of primary care patients from 80 UK general practices, patients were categorised using GOLD 2014 criteria into high and low risk groups based on exacerbation history. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to investigate covariates associated with the frequent-exacerbator phenotype and risk of experiencing a severe exacerbation (leading to hospitalisation). RESULTS: Of the total study population (n = 9219), 2612 (28%) fulfilled the criteria for high risk frequent-exacerbators. Independent risk factors (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]) for ≥2 exacerbations were: most severely impaired modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea score (mMRC grade 4: 4.37 [2.64-7.23]), lower FEV1 percent predicted (FEV1 <30%: 2.42 [1.61-3.65]), co-morbid cardiovascular disease (1.42 [1.19-1.68]), depression (1.56 [1.22-1.99]) or osteoporosis (1.54 [1.19-2.01]), and female gender (1.20 [1.01-1.43]). Older patients (≥75 years), those with most severe lung impairment (FEV1 <30%), those with highest mMRC score and those with co-morbid osteoporosis were identified as most at risk of experiencing exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: Although COPD exacerbations occur across all grades of disease severity, female patients with high dyspnoea scores, more severely impaired lung function and co-morbidities are at greatest risk. Elderly patients, with severely impaired lung function, high mMRC scores and osteoporosis are associated with experience of severe exacerbations requiring hospitalisation.

Asthma patients' inability to use a pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) correctly correlates with poor asthma control as defined by the global initiative for asthma (GINA) strategy: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: In practice it is logical that inhalers are prescribed only after patients have received training and demonstrated their ability to use the device. However, many patients are unable to use their pressurised metered-dose inhaler devices (pMDIs) correctly. We assessed the relationship between asthma control and patients' ability to use their prescribed pMDIs. METHODS: Evaluation of 3,981 (46% male) primary care asthma patient reviews, which included inhaler technique and asthma control, by specialist nurses in primary care in 2009. The paper focuses on people currently prescribed pMDI devices. RESULTS: Accurate data on reliever and preventer inhaler prescriptions were available for 3,686 and 2,887 patients, respectively. In patients prescribed reliever inhalers, 2,375 (64%) and 525 (14%) were on pMDI alone or pMDI plus spacer, respectively. For those prescribed preventers, 1,976 (68%) and 171 (6%) were using a pMDI without and with a spacer, respectively. Asthma was controlled in 50% of patients reviewed. The majority of patients (60% of 3,686) were using reliever pMDIs, 13% with spacers. Incorrect pMDI use was associated with poor asthma control (p<0.0001) and more short burst systemic steroid prescriptions in the last year (p=0.038). Of patients using beclometasone (the most frequently prescribed preventer drug in our sample), significantly more of those using a breath-actuated pMDI device (p<0.0001) and a spacer (p<0.0001) were controlled compared with those on pMDIs alone. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are able to use pMDIs correctly have better asthma control as defined by the GINA strategy document. Beclometasone via a spacer or breath-actuated device resulted in better asthma control than via a pMDI alone. Patients prescribed pMDIs should be carefully instructed in technique and have their ability to use these devices tested; those unable to use the device should be prescribed a spacer or an alternative device such as one that is breath-actuated.

Feasibility and impact of a computer-guided consultation on guideline-based management of COPD in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Applying guidelines is a universal challenge that is often not met. Intelligent software systems that facilitate real-time management during a clinical interaction may offer a solution. AIMS: To determine if the use of a computer-guided consultation that facilitates the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-based chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidance and prompts clinical decision-making is feasible in primary care and to assess its impact on diagnosis and management in reviews of COPD patients. METHODS: Practice nurses, one-third of whom had no specific respiratory training, undertook a computer-guided review in the usual consulting room setting using a laptop computer with the screen visible to them and to the patient. A total of 293 patients (mean (SD) age 69.7 (10.1) years, 163 (55.6%) male) with a diagnosis of COPD were randomly selected from GP databases in 16 practices and assessed. RESULTS: Of 236 patients who had spirometry, 45 (19%) did not have airflow obstruction and the guided clinical history changed the primary diagnosis from COPD in a further 24 patients. In the 191 patients with confirmed COPD, the consultations prompted management changes including 169 recommendations for altered prescribing of inhalers (addition or discontinuation, inhaler dose or device). In addition, 47% of the 55 current smokers were referred for smoking cessation support, 12 (6%) for oxygen assessment, and 47 (24%) for pulmonary rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-guided consultations are practicable in general practice. Primary care COPD databases were confirmed to contain a significant proportion of incorrectly assigned patients. They resulted in interventions and the rationalisation of prescribing in line with recommendations. Only in 22 (12%) of those fully assessed was no management change suggested. The introduction of a computer-guided consultation offers the prospect of comprehensive guideline quality management.

Technique training does not improve the ability of most patients to use pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs).

AIMS: According to guidelines, inhaler technique should be tested in all patients, particularly those with poorly controlled asthma. We aimed to assess uncontrolled asthma patients' ability to use a pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) using the Aerosol Inhalation Monitor (AIM, © Vitalograph). METHODS: Practices invited patients for a detailed clinical review by trained asthma nurses according to practice-agreed protocols. Reviews took place from 1st April to 30th June 2008, and included checking of inhaler technique. Reasons for invitations included, time since last review, asthma control, prescriptions, adherence to medical advice. A proxy measure of control--the total number of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) bronchodilator inhaler canisters prescribed in the previous 12 months--was used. Data on 77 pre-determined clinical parameters (including prescribing and healthcare utilisation data) were collected. Patient-completed postal symptom questionnaires (the RCP 3 questions) were obtained in some patients. All patients using pMDIs had at least two assessments using the AIM, and where appropriate inhaler technique education was provided. RESULTS: 2123 (24% of those invited) symptomatic asthma patients were reviewed; 1291 (61%) were using pMDIs (mean age 52 years; SD 21), of whom over 80% were in BTS/SIGN Steps 2 and 3. 1092 (85.6%) of those patients using pMDIs failed the first AIM assessment. There was a significant increase in the number of patients able to use their pMDIs correctly following instruction after the second (129 to 260 of 1197 patients, p<0.01) and third (61 to 181 of 528 patients, p< 0.01) tests. However, 78.4% and 65.7% of those tested twice and three times, respectively, failed the AIM assessment despite instruction. Logistic regression analysis failed to show any effect of age and BTS step on these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of symptomatic asthma patients in this study were unable to use pMDIs correctly. It is essential to check all patients' ability to use their prescribed inhalers regularly. Cost alone should not determine prescribing recommendations.