BackgroundDespite recognition of asthma as a growing global issue and development of global guidelines, asthma treatment practices vary between countries. Several studies have reported patients’ perspectives on asthma control. This study presents physicians’ perspectives and strategies for asthma management.MethodsPhysicians seeing ≥4 adult patients with asthma per month in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, and Japan were surveyed (N=1809; ≈300 per country). A standardised questionnaire was developed for this study and administered by telephone, online or face-to-face. Statistics were weighted to account for the sampling scheme.ResultsPhysicians estimated that 71% of their adult patients received maintenance medication, with adherence monitored by 76–97% of physicians. Perceived major barriers to patient adherence included: patients taking treatment as needed; acceptance of symptoms; and patients not perceiving treatment benefits. Written action plans (37%) and technology (15%) were seldom employed by physicians to aid patients’ asthma management. Physicians rarely (10%) used validated patient-reported questionnaires to monitor asthma control, instead monitoring selected symptoms, exacerbations, and/or lung function measurements. Awareness of single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART/MART) varied among countries (56–100%); although most physicians (72%) had prescribed SMART/MART, the majority (91%) co-prescribed a short-acting bronchodilator at least some of the time.ConclusionsThese results show that physicians generally do not employ standardised tools to monitor asthma control or to manage its treatment and that despite high awareness of SMART/MART, the strategy appears to be commonly misapplied. Better education for patients and physicians is required to improve asthma management and resulting patient outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-017-0492-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims Heart failure (HF) causes significant morbidity and mortality, but the rates and characteristics of people with HF in Australia are not well studied. SHAPE set out to describe the characteristics of HF patients seen in the real‐world setting. Methods We analysed anonymized patient data extracted from the clinical software of 43 participating GP clinics for the 5 year period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2018. Patients were stratified into ‘definite’ and ‘probable’ HF based on a hierarchy of selection criteria and analysed for their clinical characteristics. Symptoms and signs of HF and ejection fraction data were searched for within the free text of the medical notes. Results Of the 1.12 million adults seen regularly, 20 219 were classified as having definite or probable HF. The mean age of the population was 69.8 years, 50.6% were female, and mean body mass index was 31.2 kg/m2. Fewer than 1 in 6 had the HF diagnosis optimally recorded. Only 3.2% (650 patients) had their left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) quantified: 40.9% had an EF ≥50% and 59.1% had an EF <50%. The most common comorbidities in people with HF were hypertension (41.1%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma (25.1%) and depression/anxiety (18.4%). Hypotension (2.3%), bradycardia (6.3%), severe renal impairment (6.4%) and hyperkalaemia (2.0%) were uncommon. Just over one‐third (37.8%) had iron deficiency. Loop diuretic use was common (56.7%) but only 33.7% were on a guideline recommended beta‐blockers. Use of ivabradine (1.4%) and sacubitril/valsartan (1.2%) was very low, while 39.9% had been prescribed an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor, 31.6% an angiotensin receptor blocker and 16.0% spironolactone. Many patients were prescribed medications that may worsen HF or are relatively contraindicated, such as macrolide antibiotics (29.9%), corticosteroids (25.8%), nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (23.9%), and tricyclic antidepressants (9.4%). Conclusions Heart failure is poorly documented in general practice records and may be contributing to untoward downstream effects, such as low documentation of echocardiography, poor use of guideline recommended therapies and frequent use of medications that may worsen HF.

Aims At present, there is no robust information on the prevalence and incidence of heart failure (HF) in the general Australian community. The present study of primary care data sought to estimate the prevalence and incidence of HF in the community and to describe the demographic and clinical profile of Australians with HF. Methods and results We undertook a retrospective cohort study based on analysis of anonymized medical records of adult patients cared for at 43 Australian general practices between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2018. Data were extracted from coded and uncoded fields in electronic medical records. The prevalence and annual incidence of HF were calculated, along with 95% confidence intervals, using the 'active' population of people who were regular attenders at the practices. Age-standardized estimates were also derived using the 2017 Australian population as reference. The mean age of the population with HF was 69.8 years, 50.6% were female, and mean body mass index was 31.2 kg/m 2. The age-standardized prevalence was 2.199% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.168-2.23%], and the age-standardized annual incidence was 0.348% (95% CI: 0.342-0.354%). These estimates accord with almost 420 000 people living with HF in Australia in 2017, and >66 000 new cases of HF occurring that year. Only 18.9% of patients with definite HF had this formally captured as a 'diagnosis' in their medical record. HF was more frequent among those of lower socioeconomic status. Conclusions HF is common in Australia. The majority of HF patients do not have this diagnosis optimally noted in their primary care medical records.

Background: There is a paucity of information on the epidemiology of heart failure (HF) in Australia. The Study of Heart failure in the Australian Primary carE setting (SHAPE) study aims to estimate the prevalence and annual incidence of HF in the general Australian community and to describe the demographic and key clinical profile of Australians with HF. Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort study based on analysis of non-identifiable medical records of adult patients cared for at 43 general practices between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2018. Data were extracted from coded (diagnosis, pathology and prescription fields) and uncoded fields (clinical notes) in the medical records. The latter searches of free text looked for common synonyms relevant to HF. The population was stratified into three groups based on a hierarchy of selection criteria: (1) definite HF, (2) probable HF and (3) possible HF. The prevalence and annual incidence of HF were calculated, along with 95% confidence intervals. Results: The practices provided care to 2.3 million individual patients over the five-year study period, of whom 1.93 million were adults and 1.12 million were regular patients. Of these patients 15,468 were classified as having 'definite HF', 4751 as having 'probable HF' and 33,556 as having 'possible HF'. A further 39,247 were identified as having an aetiological condition associated with HF. A formal HF diagnosis, HF terms recorded as text in the notes and HF-specific medication were the most common methods to identify 'definite' HF patients. Typical signs and symptoms in combination with a diuretic prescription was the most common method to identify 'probable HF' patients. The majority of 'possible' HF patients were identified by the presence of 2 or more of the typical signs or symptoms. Dyspnoea was the commonest recorded symptom and an elevated jugular venous pressure the commonest recorded sign.

No abstract