55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Asthma control and management in 8,000 European patients: the REcognise Asthma and LInk to Symptoms and Experience (REALISE) survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in the world, and previous studies have reported low levels of control. Recent developments in the availability and use of online sources of information about asthma might add to patients’ knowledge and help improve control.

          Aims:

          To investigate whether asthma control has improved by assessing levels of symptoms, exacerbations and Global Initiative for Asthma-defined control in a real-life population of patients who use the Internet and social media, as well as evaluate patient perception of control and attitudes to asthma.

          Methods:

          Online surveys were conducted among 8,000 patients with asthma (aged 18–50 years, ⩾2 prescriptions in the previous 2 years, use of social media) from 11 European countries.

          Results:

          Levels of asthma control were low: 45% of respondents had uncontrolled asthma. Acute exacerbations were common: 44% of respondents reported having used oral steroids for asthma in the previous 12 months, 24% had visited an emergency department and 12% had been hospitalised. More than 80% of respondents (overall, and among those with a history of exacerbations) considered their asthma to be controlled. Of those who had an exacerbation requiring oral steroids, 75% regarded their asthma as not serious.

          Conclusions:

          Asthma control in Europe remains poor; symptoms and exacerbations are common. Many patients regard their asthma as controlled and not serious despite experiencing symptoms and exacerbations. There is a need to assess patients’ control, risk and inhaler technique, and to ensure that patients are prescribed, and take, appropriate treatments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Can guideline-defined asthma control be achieved? The Gaining Optimal Asthma ControL study.

          For most patients, asthma is not controlled as defined by guidelines; whether this is achievable has not been prospectively studied. A 1-year, randomized, stratified, double-blind, parallel-group study of 3,421 patients with uncontrolled asthma compared fluticasone propionate and salmeterol/fluticasone in achieving two rigorous, composite, guideline-based measures of control: totally and well-controlled asthma. Treatment was stepped-up until total control was achieved (or maximum 500 microg corticosteroid twice a day). Significantly more patients in each stratum (previously corticosteroid-free, low- and moderate-dose corticosteroid users) achieved control with salmeterol/fluticasone than fluticasone. Total control was achieved across all strata: 520 (31%) versus 326 (19%) patients after dose escalation (p < 0.001) and 690 (41%) versus 468 (28%) at 1 year for salmeterol/fluticasone and fluticasone, respectively. Asthma became well controlled in 1,071 (63%) versus 846 (50%) after dose escalation (p < 0.001) and 1,204 (71%) versus 988 (59%) at 1 year. Control was achieved more rapidly and at a lower corticosteroid dose with salmeterol/fluticasone versus fluticasone. Across all strata, 68% and 76% of the patients receiving salmeterol/fluticasone and fluticasone, respectively, were on the highest dose at the end of treatment. Exacerbation rates (0.07-0.27 per patient per year) and improvement in health status were significantly better with salmeterol/fluticasone. This study confirms that the goal of guideline-derived asthma control was achieved in a majority of the patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical management of asthma in 1999: the Asthma Insights and Reality in Europe (AIRE) study.

            Asthma management guidelines provide recommendations for the optimum control of asthma. This survey assessed the current levels of asthma control as reported by patients, which partly reflect the extent to which guideline recommendations are implemented. Current asthma patients were identified by telephone by screening 73,880 households in seven European countries. Designated respondents were interviewed on healthcare utilization, symptom severity, activity limitations and asthma control. Current asthma patients were identified in 3,488 households, and 2,803 patients (80.4%) completed the survey. Forty-six per cent of patients reported daytime symptoms and 30% reported asthma-related sleep disturbances, at least once a week. In the past 12 months, 25% of patients reported an unscheduled urgent care visit, 10% reported one or more emergency room visits and 7% reported overnight hospitalization due to asthma. In the past 4 weeks, more patients had used prescription quick-relief medication (63%) than inhaled corticosteroids (23%). Patient perception of asthma control did not match their symptom severity; approximately 50% of patients reporting severe persistent symptoms also considered their asthma to be completely or well controlled. The current level of asthma control in Europe falls far short of the goals for long-term asthma management. Patients' perception of asthma control is different from their actual asthma control.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Attitudes and actions of asthma patients on regular maintenance therapy: the INSPIRE study

              Background This study examined the attitudes and actions of 3415 physician-recruited adults aged ≥ 16 years with asthma in eleven countries who were prescribed regular maintenance therapy with inhaled corticosteroids or inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2-agonists. Methods Structured interviews were conducted to assess medication use, asthma control, and patients' ability to recognise and self-manage worsening asthma. Results Despite being prescribed regular maintenance therapy, 74% of patients used short-acting β2-agonists daily and 51% were classified by the Asthma Control Questionnaire as having uncontrolled asthma. Even patients with well-controlled asthma reported an average of 6 worsenings/year. The mean period from the onset to the peak symptoms of a worsening was 5.1 days. Although most patients recognised the early signs of worsenings, the most common response was to increase short-acting β2-agonist use; inhaled corticosteroids were increased to a lesser extent at the peak of a worsening. Conclusion Previous studies of this nature have also reported considerable patient morbidity, but in those studies approximately three-quarters of patients were not receiving regular maintenance therapy and not all had a physician-confirmed diagnosis of asthma. This study shows that patients with asthma receiving regular maintenance therapy still have high levels of inadequately controlled asthma. The study also shows that patients recognise deteriorating asthma control and adjust their medication during episodes of worsening. However, they often adjust treatment in an inappropriate manner, which represents a window of missed opportunity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                NPJ Prim Care Respir Med
                NPJ Prim Care Respir Med
                NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
                Nature Publishing Group
                2055-1010
                12 June 2014
                2014
                : 24
                : 14009
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen , Aberdeen, UK
                [2 ] Education for Health , Warwick, UK
                [3 ] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen , Groningen, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                []

                All authors contributed to the conception and design of the survey, interpretation of the data, and development of the flow, outline and content of the manuscript; the authors reviewed each draft of the full manuscript and approved the final version. The authors take full responsibility for the content of the article and act as guarantors.

                Article
                npjpcrm20149
                10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.9
                4373302
                24921985
                6013e8e1-bea0-473e-8a92-942e31c8891b
                Copyright © 2014 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK /Macmillan Publishers Limited

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History
                : 18 October 2013
                : 30 January 2014
                : 06 March 2014
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article