ObjectiveWe aimed to compare patient’s and physician’s ratings of inhaled medication adherence and to identify predictors of patient-physician discordance.DesignBaseline data from two prospective multicentre observational studies.Setting29 allergy, pulmonology and paediatric secondary care outpatient clinics in Portugal.Participants395 patients (≥13 years old) with persistent asthma.MeasuresData on demographics, patient-physician relationship, upper airway control, asthma control, asthma treatment, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and healthcare use were collected. Patients and physicians independently assessed adherence to inhaled controller medication during the previous week using a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Discordance was defined as classification in distinct VAS categories (low 0–50; medium 51–80; high 81–100) or as an absolute difference in VAS scores ≥10 mm. Correlation between patients’ and physicians’ VAS scores/categories was explored. A multinomial logistic regression identified the predictors of physician overestimation and underestimation.ResultsHigh inhaler adherence was reported both by patients (median (percentile 25 to percentile 75) 85 (65–95) mm; 53% VAS>80) and by physicians (84 (68–95) mm; 53% VAS>80). Correlation between patient and physician VAS scores was moderate (rs=0.580; p<0.001). Discordance occurred in 56% of cases: in 28% physicians overestimated adherence and in 27% underestimated. Low adherence as assessed by the physician (OR=27.35 (9.85 to 75.95)), FEV1 ≥80% (OR=2.59 (1.08 to 6.20)) and a first appointment (OR=5.63 (1.24 to 25.56)) were predictors of underestimation. An uncontrolled asthma (OR=2.33 (1.25 to 4.34)), uncontrolled upper airway disease (OR=2.86 (1.35 to 6.04)) and prescription of short-acting beta-agonists alone (OR=3.05 (1.15 to 8.08)) were associated with overestimation. Medium adherence as assessed by the physician was significantly associated with higher risk of discordance, both for overestimation and underestimation of adherence (OR=14.50 (6.04 to 34.81); OR=2.21 (1.07 to 4.58)), while having a written action plan decreased the likelihood of discordance (OR=0.25 (0.12 to 0.52); OR=0.41 (0.22 to 0.78)) (R2=44%).ConclusionAlthough both patients and physicians report high inhaler adherence, discordance occurred in half of cases. Implementation of objective adherence measures and effective communication are needed to improve patient-physician agreement.
Objetivo: O câncer de pulmão (CP) é uma das principais causas de morte no mundo. Um estadiamento mediastinal preciso é obrigatório para avaliação do prognóstico e seleção de pacientes para tratamento cirúrgico. EBUS-TBNA é um procedimento minimamente invasivo que permite a amostragem de linfonodos mediastinais. Alguns estudos sugerem que a EBUS-TBNA é preferível que a mediastinoscopia cirúrgica no estadiamento mediastinal do CP. O objetivo desta revisão sistemática e meta-análise foi comparar a eficácia da EBUS-TBNA e da mediastinoscopia no estadiamento linfonodal mediastinal do câncer de pulmão de células não pequenas (CPCNP) potencialmente operável. Métodos: Foram pesquisados diversos bancos de dados. Estudos comparando a precisão da EBUS-TBNA e da mediastinoscopia no estadiamento linfonodal mediastinal em pacientes com CPCNP foram incluídos. Na meta-análise, foram calculadas sensibilidade e especificidade, bem como razões de verossimilhança positiva e negativa. A diferença de risco de complicações relatadas para cada procedimento também foi analisada. Resultados: A pesquisa identificou 4.201 artigos, dos quais 5 foram selecionados para a meta-análise (total combinado de 532 pacientes). Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre EBUS-TBNA e mediastinoscopia: sensibilidade (81% vs. 75%), especificidade (100% para ambas), razão de verossimilhança positiva (101,03 vs. 95,70) e razão de verossimilhança negativa (0,21 vs. 0,23). A área sob a curva summary ROC para EBUS-TBNA e para mediastinoscopia foi de 0,9881 e 0,9895, respectivamente. Embora o número de complicações tenha sido maior para mediastinoscopia, não foi encontrada diferença significativa (diferença de risco: −0,03; IC95%: −0,07 to 0,01; I 2 = 76%). Conclusões: EBUS-TBNA e mediastinoscopia apresentaram resultados semelhantes no estadiamento mediastinal do CPCNP. EBUS-TBNA pode ser o procedimento de primeira escolha no estadiamento linfonodal em pacientes com CPCNP.Descritores: Neoplasias pulmonares/diagnóstico; Estadiamento de neoplasias; Neoplasias do mediastino/diagnóstico; Aspiração por agulha fina guiada por ultrassom endoscópico; Mediastinoscopia.
Background Poor medication adherence is a major challenge in asthma, and objective assessment of inhaler adherence is needed. The InspirerMundi app aims to monitor adherence while providing a positive experience through gamification and social support. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the InspirerMundi app to monitor medication adherence in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma (treated with daily inhaled medication). Methods A 1-month mixed method multicenter observational study was conducted in 26 secondary care centers from Portugal and Spain. During an initial face-to-face visit, physicians reported patients’ asthma therapeutic plan in a structured questionnaire. During the visits, patients were invited to use the app daily to register their asthma medication intakes. A scheduled intake was considered taken when patients registered the intake (inhaler, blister, or other drug formulation) by using the image-based medication detection tool. At 1 month, patients were interviewed by phone, and app satisfaction was assessed on a 1 (low) to 5 (high) scale. Patients were also asked to point out the most and least preferred app features and make suggestions for future app improvements. Results A total of 107 patients (median 27 [P25-P75 14-40] years) were invited, 92.5% (99/107) installed the app, and 73.8% (79/107) completed the 1-month interview. Patients interacted with the app a median of 9 (P25-P75 1-24) days. At least one medication was registered in the app by 78% (77/99) of patients. A total of 53% (52/99) of participants registered all prescribed inhalers, and 34% (34/99) registered the complete asthma therapeutic plan. Median medication adherence was 75% (P25-P75 25%-90%) for inhalers and 82% (P25-P75 50%-94%) for other drug formulations. Patients were globally satisfied with the app, with 75% (59/79) scoring ≥4,; adherence monitoring, symptom monitoring, and gamification features being the most highly scored components; and the medication detection tool among the lowest scored. A total of 53% (42/79) of the patients stated that the app had motivated them to improve adherence to inhaled medication and 77% (61/79) would recommend the app to other patients. Patient feedback was reflected in 4 major themes: medication-related features (67/79, 85%), gamification and social network (33/79, 42%), symptom monitoring and physician communication (21/79, 27%), and other aspects (16/79, 20%). Conclusions The InspirerMundi app was feasible and acceptable to monitor medication adherence in patients with asthma. Based on patient feedback and to increase the registering of medications, the therapeutic plan registration and medication detection tool were redesigned. Our results highlight the importance of patient participation to produce a patient-centered and engaging mHealth asthma app.
Background: Poor medication adherence is a major challenge in asthma and objective assessment of inhaler adherence is needed. InspirerMundi app aims to monitor inhaler adherence while turning it into a positive experience through gamification and social support.Objective: We assessed the medium-term feasibility of the InspirerMundi app to monitor inhaler adherence in real-world patients with persistent asthma (treated with daily inhaled medication). In addition, we attempted to identify the characteristics of the patients related to higher app use.Methods: Two real-world multicenter observational studies, with one initial face-to-face visit and a 4-month telephone interview, were conducted in 29 secondary care centers from Portugal. During an initial face-to-face visit, patients were invited to use the app daily to register their asthma medication intakes. A scheduled intake was considered taken when patients took a photo of the medication (inhaler, blister, or others) using the image-based medication detection tool. Medication adherence was calculated as the number of doses taken as a percentage of the number scheduled. Interacting with the app ≥30 days was used as the cut-off for higher app use.Results: A total of 114 patients {median 20 [percentile 25 to percentile 75 (P25–P75) 16–36] years, 62% adults} were invited, 107 (94%) installed the app and 83 (73%) completed the 4-month interview. Patients interacted with the app for a median of 18 [3–45] days, translated on a median use rate of 15 [3–38]%. Median inhaler adherence assessed through the app was 34 [4–73]% when considering all scheduled inhalations for the study period. Inhaler adherence assessed was not significantly correlated with self-reported estimates. Median adherence for oral and other medication was 41 [6–83]% and 43 [3–73]%, respectively. Patients with higher app use were slightly older (p = 0.012), more frequently taking medication for other health conditions (p = 0.040), and more frequently prescribed long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA, p = 0.024). After 4 months, Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) scores improved (p < 0.001), but no differences between patients interacting with the app for 30 days or less were seen.Conclusions: The InspirerMundi app was feasible to monitor inhaler adherence in patients with persistent asthma. The persistent use of this mHealth technology varies widely. A better understanding of characteristics related to higher app use is still needed before effectiveness studies are undertaken.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.