Blog
About

2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of medicines and health services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among a cohort of Australians over 50 years

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          It is not known if the medicines and services for COPD are used in Australia according to the COPD-X guideline. This study examined the use of medicines and health services for COPD among an Australian cohort to determine if they were consistent with recommendations.

          Methods

          The administrative claims data from the Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs were used and included persons aged ≥50 years who were using medicines for COPD in April 2016. Use of medicines was identified using the Anatomical, Therapeutic and Chemical Classification and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Use of services was identified using the Medicare Benefits Schedule and Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs Fee Schedule.

          Results

          Of the 143,261 persons aged ≥50 years, 12,623 (8.8%) were on medicines for COPD. Of the total COPD population, 42% were managed on monotherapy, 36% on dual therapy, 21% on triple therapy, and 1.5% on more than three COPD medicines. Monotherapy comprised tiotropium (80%) predominantly. Services to practitioners who may provide pulmonary rehabilitation service showed less than 10% of the cohort had a claim for a visit to an exercise physiologist and less than a third had a claim for a physiotherapist visit in the prior 12 months. Services to assist with care coordination in the form of general practitioner management plans were only claimed by half of the cohort, while services supporting appropriate medicine use were claimed by less than one in six cases, despite high levels of inhaler use and multiple inhaler use.

          Conclusion

          More than three-quarters of COPD persons aged 50 years and above were managed on either monotherapy or dual therapy, consistent with the guideline recommendations. Almost one-quarter was on three or more therapies, which will create challenges for multiple device management. Many services that may benefit persons with COPD appear to be underutilized.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 10

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

          Effect of incorrect use of dry powder inhalers on management of patients with asthma and COPD.

          Incorrect usage of inhaler devices might have a major influence on the clinical effectiveness of the delivered drug. This issue is poorly addressed in management guidelines. This article presents the results of a systematic literature review of studies evaluating incorrect use of established dry powder inhalers (DPIs) by patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Overall, we found that between 4% and 94% of patients, depending on the type of inhaler and method of assessment, do not use their inhalers correctly. The most common errors made included failure to exhale before actuation, failure to breath-hold after inhalation, incorrect positioning of the inhaler, incorrect rotation sequence, and failure to execute a forceful and deep inhalation. Inefficient DPI technique may lead to insufficient drug delivery and hence to insufficient lung deposition. As many as 25% of patients have never received verbal inhaler technique instruction, and for those that do, the quality and duration of instruction is not adequate and not reinforced by follow-up checks. This review demonstrates that incorrect DPI technique with established DPIs is common among patients with asthma and COPD, and suggests that poor inhalation technique has detrimental consequences for clinical efficacy. Regular assessment and reinforcement of correct inhalation technique are considered by health professionals and caregivers to be an essential component of successful asthma management. Improvement of asthma and COPD management could be achieved by new DPIs that are easy to use correctly and are forgiving of poor inhalation technique, thus ensuring more successful drug delivery.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Management of COPD in the UK primary-care setting: an analysis of real-life prescribing patterns

            Background Despite the availability of national and international guidelines, evidence suggests that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is not always prescribed according to recommendations. This study evaluated the current management of patients with COPD using a large UK primary-care database. Methods This analysis used electronic patient records and patient-completed questionnaires from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Data on current management were analyzed by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group and presence or absence of a concomitant asthma diagnosis, in patients with a COPD diagnosis at ≥35 years of age and with spirometry results supportive of the COPD diagnosis. Results A total of 24,957 patients were analyzed, of whom 13,557 (54.3%) had moderate airflow limitation (GOLD Stage 2 COPD). The proportion of patients not receiving pharmacologic treatment for COPD was 17.0% in the total COPD population and 17.7% in the GOLD Stage 2 subset. Approximately 50% of patients in both cohorts were receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), either in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA; 26.7% for both cohorts) or a LABA and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA; 23.2% and 19.9%, respectively). ICS + LABA and ICS + LABA + LAMA were the most frequently used treatments in GOLD Groups A and B. Of patients without concomitant asthma, 53.7% of the total COPD population and 50.2% of the GOLD Stage 2 subset were receiving ICS. Of patients with GOLD Stage 2 COPD and no exacerbations in the previous year, 49% were prescribed ICS. A high proportion of GOLD Stage 2 COPD patients were symptomatic on their current management (36.6% with modified Medical Research Council score ≥2; 76.4% with COPD Assessment Test score ≥10). Conclusion COPD is not treated according to GOLD and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations in the UK primary-care setting. Some patients receive no treatment despite experiencing symptoms. Among those on treatment, most receive ICS irrespective of severity of airflow limitation, asthma diagnosis, and exacerbation history. Many patients on treatment continue to have symptoms.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Inhaler devices in asthma and COPD--an assessment of inhaler technique and patient preferences.

              Incorrect use of inhaler devices remains an obstacle for respiratory diseases management. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of inhaler technique errors; to determine the devices perceived as the easiest and favourite to use; to study the association of device type, demographics and patient preferences with inhaler technique (IT).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2018
                04 October 2018
                : 13
                : 3085-3093
                Affiliations
                Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia, renly.lim@ 123456unisa.edu.au
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Renly Lim, Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia, Tel +61 8 8302 2307, Fax +61 8 8302 2466, Email renly.lim@ 123456unisa.edu.au
                Article
                copd-13-3085
                10.2147/COPD.S172495
                6174901
                © 2018 Lim et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article