Education on optimal medication use is an essential strategy to improve asthma control. The current authors investigated whether pharmacist interventions, focused on appropriate use of asthma medication and tailor-made to the patient's current asthma control, would improve asthma control in adult patients.A 6-month randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial was conducted in 66 community pharmacies in Belgium. Patients were randomly assigned to receive usual pharmacist care (n594) or a pre-defined pharmacist intervention (n5107). This intervention mainly focused on improving inhalation technique and medication adherence. Primary outcome was the level of asthma control, as assessed by the Asthma Control Test1 (ACT).Mean ACT scores did not change from baseline for both study groups. However, a pre-defined subgroup analysis of patients having insufficiently controlled asthma at baseline showed that the intervention had significantly increased the ACT score after 6 months compared with usual care. The intervention also reduced, for the complete study group, reliever medication use and the frequency of night-time awakenings due to asthma. Inhalation technique and adherence to controller medication were significantly better in the intervention group.In conclusion, pragmatic community pharmacy-based programmes can significantly improve therapeutic outcomes in adult asthma patients.

AIMSFew well-designed randomized controlled trials have been conducted regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care programme for patients with COPD. METHODSThe pharmaceutical care for patients with COPD (PHARMACOP) trial is a single-blind 3 month randomized controlled trial, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged ≥50 years and with a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to an intervention group (n = 371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or a control group (n = 363), receiving usual pharmacist care (1:1 ratio, stratified by centre). Interventions focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy were carried out at start of the trial and at 1 month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnoea, COPD-specific and generic health status and smoking behaviour. RESULTSFrom December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. Forty-two patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score [mean estimated difference (Δ),13.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 10.8-16.1; P < 0.0001] and medication adherence (Δ, 8.51%; 95% CI,; P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. In the intervention group, a significantly lower hospitalization rate was observed (9 vs. 35; rate ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = 0.003). No other significant between-group differences were observed. CONCLUSIONSPragmatic pharmacist care programmes improve the pharmacotherapeutic regimen in patients with COPD and could reduce hospitalization rates.

This study provides new evidence, from a randomized controlled trial, of the beneficial effect of community pharmacist intervention in the clinical management of type 2 diabetic patients. However, questions remain about the sustainability of the observed improvements.

This observational study on COPD management in primary care highlights 4 main aspects that could be improved: (1) drug adherence, (2) inhalation technique with pMDIs, (3) influenza vaccination in COPD patients younger than 65 years, and (4) smoking cessation.

Self-reported adherence measured by MARS-5 is inaccurate in identifying nonadherence to inhalation medication in patients with COPD.