Dataset Information

Factors affecting adherence with treatment advice in a clinical trial of patients with severe asthma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Understanding why patients with severe asthma do not follow healthcare provider (HCP) advice to adjust treatment is critical to achieving personalised disease management.

Methods

We reviewed patient choice to follow HCP advice to adjust asthma treatment in a UK-based randomised, controlled, single-blind (study participant), multicentre, parallel group 48-week clinical study comparing biomarker-directed treatment adjustment with standard care in severe asthma.

Results

Of 1572 treatment advisories (291 participants), instructions were followed in 1377 cases (87.6%). Patients were more likely to follow advice to remain on treatment (96.7%) than to either reduce (70.3%) or increase (67.1%) their treatment, with 64% of patients following all treatment advice. Multivariate analysis associated belonging to an ethnic minority group (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.68-5.73) and prior study medication changes (two or more changes: OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.51-5.10) with failure to follow treatment advice. In contrast, emergency room attendance in the prior year (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.92) was associated with following treatment advice. The largest effect was seen with transition onto or off oral corticosteroids (OR 29.28, 95% CI 16.07-53.36) when compared with those requested to maintain treatment. Centre was also an important determinant regarding the likelihood of patients to follow treatment advice.

Conclusions

Belonging to an ethnic minority group and multiple prior treatment adjustments were associated with not following HCP treatment advice. Patients also responded differently to HCP advice across UK specialist centres. These findings have implications for the generalisability of models of care in severe asthma and require further focused studies.

SUBMITTER: Busby J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9202483 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors affecting adherence with treatment advice in a clinical trial of patients with severe asthma.

Busby John J Matthews John G JG Chaudhuri Rekha R Pavord Ian D ID Hardman Timothy C TC Arron Joseph R JR Bradding Peter P Brightling Christopher E CE Choy David F DF Cowan Douglas C DC Djukanovic Ratko R Hanratty Catherine E CE Harrison Tim W TW Holweg Cecile T CT Howarth Peter H PH Fowler Stephen J SJ Lordan James L JL Mansur Adel H AH Menzies-Gow Andrew A Niven Robert M RM Robinson Douglas S DS Walker Samantha M SM Woodcock Ashley A Heaney Liam G LG

The European respiratory journal 20210924 4

<h4>Background</h4>Understanding why patients with severe asthma do not follow healthcare provider (HCP) advice to adjust treatment is critical to achieving personalised disease management.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed patient choice to follow HCP advice to adjust asthma treatment in a UK-based randomised, controlled, single-blind (study participant), multicentre, parallel group 48-week clinical study comparing biomarker-directed treatment adjustment with standard care in severe asthma.<h4>Results ...[more]

PMID: 34561291

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTreatment adherence is a vital aspect in the management of chronic diseases like leprosy; however, most studies on treatment adherence focus on patients. This study aims to examine the perceptions of healthcare providers on factors that can promote or prevent patients from adhering to treatment.MethodsWe conducted three focus group discussions (FGDs) with healthcare providers who have at least one year experience in managing leprosy in three large leprosy case-holding hospitals in Metro Manila, Philippines. We audio-recorded, transcribed, translated the FGD proceedings, and analyzed the transcripts thematically to identify patient-intrinsic and patient-extrinsic enablers and barriers to treatment adherence of leprosy patients.ResultsPatient-intrinsic motivators to complete treatment include innate desire to be cured, fear of infecting family and friends, fear of disability, good knowledge about the disease, need for medical clearance to be considered fit to work, and experiencing leprosy reactions. Patient-extrinsic motivators to complete treatment include free treatment, immediate and sufficient counselling, flexibility in treatment, follow-up and motivation of healthcare workers, and presence of Hansen's Club and support groups. Patient-intrinsic barriers to good treatment adherence include distance between residence and hospital, financial and opportunity costs, adverse drug reactions, misconceptions about being cured, disabilities and presence of leprosy reactions, stubbornness and/or laziness, and undergoing clinical depression. Patient-extrinsic barriers to good treatment adherence include poor availability of MDT, transfer to other leprosy treatment facilities without informing current facility, and stigma.ConclusionHealthcare providers perceive that patient-intrinsic and patient-extrinsic factors influence the treatment adherence of leprosy patients through different mechanisms. We highlight the role of healthcare provider attitudes, stigma, and support groups in promoting treatment adherence.

Project description:Rationale: The past 25 years have seen huge progress in understanding of the pathobiology of type-2 (T2) asthma, identification of measurable biomarkers, and the emergence of novel monoclonal antibody treatments. Although present in a minority of patients with severe asthma, very little is known about the mechanisms underlying T2-low asthma, making it a significant unmet need in asthma research. Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore the differences between study exacerbators and nonexacerbators, to describe physiological changes at exacerbation in those who are T2HIGH and T2LOW at the time of exacerbation, and to evaluate the stability of inflammatory phenotypes when stable and at exacerbation. Methods: Exacerbation assessment was a prespecified secondary analysis of data from a 48-week, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study comparing the use of biomarkers and symptoms to adjust steroid treatment in a T2-low severe asthma-enriched cohort. Participants were phenotyped as T2LOW (fractional exhaled nitric oxide ⩽ 20 ppb and blood eosinophil count ⩽ 150 cells/µl) or T2HIGH (fractional exhaled nitric oxide > 20 or blood eosinophil count > 150) at study enrollment and at each exacerbation. Here, we report the findings of the exacerbation analyses, including comparison of exacerbators and nonexacerbators, the physiological changes at exacerbation in those who had evidence of T2 biology at exacerbation versus those that did not, and the stability of inflammatory phenotypes when stable and at exacerbation. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 301 participants, 60.8% (183) had one or more self-reported exacerbations (total of 390). Exacerbators were more likely to be female, have a higher body mass index, and have more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid and unscheduled primary care attendances for exacerbations. At enrollment, 23.6% (71) were T2LOW and 76.4% (230) T2HIGH. The T2LOW group had more asthma primary care attendances, were more likely to have a previous admission to HDU (high dependency unit)/ICU and to be receiving maintenance oral corticosteroids. At exacerbation, the T2LOW events were indistinguishable from T2HIGH exacerbations in terms of lung function (mean fall in T2LOW FEV1, 200 [400] ml vs. T2HIGH 200 [300] ml; P = 0.93) and symptom increase (ACQ5: T2LOW, 1.4 [0.8] vs. T2HIGH, 1.3 [0.8]; P = 0.72), with no increase in T2 biomarkers from stable to exacerbation state in the T2LOW exacerbations. The inflammatory phenotype within individual patients was dynamic; inflammatory phenotype at study entry did not have a significant association with exacerbation phenotype. Conclusions: Asthma exacerbations demonstrating a T2LOW phenotype were physiologically and symptomatically similar to T2HIGH exacerbations. T2LOW asthma was an unstable phenotype, suggesting that exacerbation phenotyping should occur at the time of exacerbation. The clinically significant exacerbations in participants without evidence of T2 biology at the time of exacerbation highlight the unmet and pressing need to further understand the mechanisms at play in non-T2 asthma. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02717689).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many patients with asthma remain poorly controlled despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta agonists. Poor control may arise from inadequate adherence, incorrect inhaler technique or because the condition is refractory. Without having an objective assessment of adherence, clinicians may inadvertently add extra medication instead of addressing adherence. This study aims to assess if incorporating objectively recorded adherence from the Inhaler Compliance Assessment (INCA) device and lung function into clinical decision making provides more cost-effective prescribing and improves outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This prospective, randomised, multicentre study will compare the impact of using information on adherence to influence asthma treatment. Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma will be included. Data on adherence, inhaler technique and electronically recorded peak expiratory flow rate will be used to promote adherence and guide a clinical decision protocol to guide management in the active group. The control group will receive standard inhaler and adherence education. Medications will be adjusted using a protocol based on Global Initiativefor Asthma (GINA) recommendations. The primary outcome is the between-group difference in the proportion of patients who have refractory disease and are prescribed appropriate medications at the end of 32?weeks. A co-primary outcome is the difference between groups in the rate of adherence to salmeterol/fluticasone inhaler over the last 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include changes in symptoms, lung function, type-2 cytokine biomarkers and clinical outcomes between both groups. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the INCA device intervention will be performed. The economic impact of a national implementation of the INCA-SUN programme will be evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The results of the study will be published as a manuscript in peer-reviewed journals. The study has been approved by the ethics committees in the five participating hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02307669; Pre-results.

Project description:Importance:Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is common and associated with substantial adverse health consequences. Long wait times for SDB care are commonly reported; however, it is unclear whether wait times for care are associated with clinical outcomes. Objective:To evaluate the association of wait times for care with clinical outcomes for patients with severe SDB. Design, Setting, and Participants:This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical noninferiority trial comparing management by alternative care practitioners (ACPs) with traditional sleep physician-led care between October 2014 and May 2017. The study took place at Foothills Medical Centre Sleep Centre, a tertiary care multidisciplinary sleep clinic at the University of Calgary. Patients with severe SDB (defined as a respiratory event index ?30 events per hour during home sleep apnea testing, mean nocturnal oxygen saturation ?85%, or suspected sleep hypoventilation syndrome) were recruited for the study. Patients were excluded if they were suspected of having a concomitant sleep disorder other than SDB or had previously been treated with positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for SDB. Data were analyzed from October 2017 to January 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcomes were assessed 3 months after treatment initiation with adherence to PAP therapy as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction measured using the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument-9. Multiple regression models were used to assess the associations between wait times and each of the outcomes. t tests were used to compare wait times for patients who were adherent to PAP therapy (?4 hours per night for 70% of nights) with those for nonadherent patients. Results:One hundred fifty-six patients (112 [71.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 56 [12] years) were included in the analysis. The mean time from referral to initial visit was 88 days (95% CI, 79 to 96 days), and the mean time to treatment was 123 days (95% CI, 112 to 133 days). Shorter wait time to treatment initiation was associated with adherence to PAP therapy (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98 to 0.99; P?=?.04), greater improvement in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (mean coefficient, -9.37; 95% CI, -18.51 to -0.24; P?=?.04), and higher Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument-9 score (mean coefficient, -0.024; 95% CI, -0.047 to -0.0015; P?=?.04) at 3 months. Compared with nonadherent patients, those who were adherent to treatment waited a mean of 15 fewer days (95% CI, 12 to 19 days) for initial assessment (P?=?.07) and 30 fewer days (95% CI, 23 to 35 days) for treatment initiation (P?=?.008). Conclusions and Relevance:Earlier initiation of treatment for severe SDB was associated with better PAP adherence and greater improvements in daytime sleepiness and patient satisfaction. These findings suggest that system interventions to improve timely access may modify patient behavior and improve clinical outcomes. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02191085.

Dataset Information

Factors affecting adherence with treatment advice in a clinical trial of patients with severe asthma.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Factors affecting adherence with treatment advice in a clinical trial of patients with severe asthma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets