Dataset Information

Adherence to adding inhaled corticosteroids to rescue therapy in a pragmatic trial with adults with asthma: A pilot study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Underuse of guideline-recommended inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) controller therapy is a risk factor for greater asthma burden. ICS concomitantly used with rescue inhalers (Patient-Activated Reliever-Triggered ICS ['PARTICS']) reduced asthma exacerbations in efficacy trials, but whether PARTICS is effective in pragmatic trials is unknown.

Objective

We conducted this pilot to determine the feasibility of executing a large-scale pragmatic PARTICS trial and to improve study protocols.

Methods

Four sites recruited 33 Hispanic or black adults with persistent asthma, randomized them approximately 3:1 to intervention or usual care, and followed them for 12 weeks. All participants received asthma guideline-based educational videos; intervention participants received video-based instructions on implementing PARTICS plus usual medications. The study involved 1 randomization visit and monthly questionnaires. Timely questionnaire responses (±2 weeks) were monitored. Participants underwent qualitative phone interviews to assess self-reported adherence to PARTICS and understand barriers to completing study procedures.

Results

Timely questionnaire response rates were 61%, 64%, and 70% at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, respectively. Self-reported adherence to PARTICS was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-94% [n = 21]), 88% (95%CI, 72%-100% [n = 16]), and 62% (95%CI, 36%-88% [n = 13]) at weeks 1, 6, and 12, respectively. Barriers to completing study procedures included difficulties with questionnaire access, remembering to use ICS and rescue inhalers together, and obtaining refills. Only 22% of participants recognized their short-acting bronchodilator as "reliever" or "rescue."

Conclusion

Recruitment was feasible within the allocated period. Adherence to PARTICS was incomplete, questionnaire completion was suboptimal, and common rescue inhaler nomenclature usage was limited. We have modified the full study protocol to attempt to improve adherence to PARTICS and minimize barriers to study procedures.

Clinical trials registration

pilot study for 'PeRson EmPowered Asthma Relief' (PREPARE, NCT02995733).

SUBMITTER: Cardet JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7188592 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundYoung adults with asthma often report low adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), leading to uncontrolled symptoms and poor disease outcomes. Technology-enabled digital supports such as mobile health (mHealth) asthma smartphone apps have the potential to support adherence to ICS and asthma self-management. There is a need for feasibility studies to determine the usability, acceptability, and feasibility of these interventions. In addition, it is essential to determine the feasibility of recruiting and retaining young adults to plan future efficacy and effectiveness trials and therefore, establish evidence-based asthma apps.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine (1) the feasibility of recruiting and retaining young adults to a trial and (2) the usability, acceptability, and feasibility of using the AsthmaMD app to support adherence to ICS in a population of young adults living with asthma.MethodsA multi-methods feasibility study was conducted. Young adults aged 18-30 years with asthma and current prescription for ICS were eligible and invited to take part through a university circular email, social media, and general practice sites. Participation involved completing a baseline self-report questionnaire, downloading and using the AsthmaMD app for 2 weeks, and completing the follow-up assessment, including self-report and open-ended questions about participants' experience of using the app. Primary outcomes included participant recruitment and retention and the usability, acceptability, and feasibility of using AsthmaMD. Quantitative self-report data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative open-ended data were analyzed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 122 young adults (females, n=101, 82.8%) with a mean age of 24.4 (SD 3.8) years were recruited and they completed baseline measures. Of the 122 young adults, 59 (48.4%) completed the study. The AsthmaMD app received a mean score of 63.1/100 (SD 20.1) on the System Usability Scale (ie, a standardized measure of usability for technology-based apps), and an overall user satisfaction score of 5.8/10 (SD 2.2). Of the 59 participants who completed the study, 49 (83%) participants used the app ≥1 day per week. Two main themes were identified in the qualitative analysis of user experiences: (1) learning how to use the app to suit the individual and (2) benefits and relevance of using the app.ConclusionsThe findings from this study indicate that it is feasible to recruit and retain young adults to examine efficacy and effectiveness in a future trial and that young adults living with asthma may find AsthmaMD to be usable, acceptable, and feasible to support adherence to ICS. Our findings also identified opportunities to further optimize the usability of AsthmaMD and similar apps. Based on our findings, we recommend providing more accessible information on how to use the app and replacing medical terminology with simplified language within the app to improve usability.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11295269; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11295269.

Project description:BackgroundFor children who have uncontrolled asthma despite the use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), evidence to guide step-up therapy is lacking.MethodsWe randomly assigned 182 children (6 to 17 years of age), who had uncontrolled asthma while receiving 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily, to receive each of three blinded step-up therapies in random order for 16 weeks: 250 microg of fluticasone twice daily (ICS step-up), 100 microg of fluticasone plus 50 microg of a long-acting beta-agonist twice daily (LABA step-up), or 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily plus 5 or 10 mg of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist daily (LTRA step-up). We used a triple-crossover design and a composite of three outcomes (exacerbations, asthma-control days, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second) to determine whether the frequency of a differential response to the step-up regimens was more than 25%.ResultsA differential response occurred in 161 of 165 patients who were evaluated (P<0.001). The response to LABA step-up therapy was most likely to be the best response, as compared with responses to LTRA step-up (relative probability, 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.3; P=0.004) and ICS step-up (relative probability, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.4; P=0.002). Higher scores on the Asthma Control Test before randomization (indicating better control at baseline) predicted a better response to LABA step-up (P=0.009). White race predicted a better response to LABA step-up, whereas black patients were least likely to have a best response to LTRA step-up (P=0.005).ConclusionsNearly all the children had a differential response to each step-up therapy. LABA step-up was significantly more likely to provide the best response than either ICS or LTRA step-up. However, many children had a best response to ICS or LTRA step-up therapy, highlighting the need to regularly monitor and appropriately adjust each child's asthma therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00395304.)