Background: To validate the ‘Test of Adherence to Inhalers’ (TAI), a 12-item questionnaire designed to assess the adherence to inhalers in patients with COPD or asthma.Methods: A total of 1009 patients with asthma or COPD participated in a cross-sectional multicenter study. Patients with electronic adherence ≥80% were defined as adherents. Construct validity, internal validity, and criterion validity were evaluated. Self-reported adherence was compared with the Morisky-Green questionnaire.Results: Factor analysis study demonstrated two factors, factor 1 was coincident with TAI patient domain (items 1 to 10) and factor 2 with TAI health-care professional domain (items 11 and 12). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.860 and the test-retest reliability 0.883. TAI scores correlated with electronic adherence (ρ=0.293, p=0.01). According to the best cut-off for 10 items (score 50, area under the ROC curve 0.7), 569 (62.5%) patients were classified as non-adherents. The non-adherence behavior pattern was: erratic 527 (57.9%), deliberate 375 (41.2%), and unwitting 242 (26.6%) patients. As compared to Morisky-Green test, TAI showed better psychometric properties.Conclusions: The TAI is a reliable and homogeneous questionnaire to identify easily non-adherence and to classify from a clinical perspective the barriers related to the use of inhalers in asthma and COPD.

Differences between COPD and asthma may also differentially affect adherence to inhaled drugs in each disease. We aimed to determine differences in behaviour patterns of adherence and non-adherence to inhaled therapy between patients with COPD and patients with asthma using the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI) questionnaire. A total of 910 patients (55% with asthma, 45% with COPD) participated in a cross-sectional multicentre study. Data recorded included sociodemographics, education level, asthma or COPD history, TAI score, the Asthma Control Test (ACT), the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and spirometry. Asthma patients were statistically significant less adherents, 140 (28%) vs. 201 (49%), and the pattern of non-adherence was more frequently erratic (66.8% vs. 47.8%) and deliberate (47.2% vs. 34.1%) than COPD patients; however unwitting non-adherence was more frequently observed in COPD group (31.2% vs. 22.8%). Moreover, taking together all sample studied, only being younger than 50 years of age (OR 1.88 [95% CI: 1.26-2.81]) and active working status (OR 1.45 [95% CI: 1.00-2.09]) were risk factors for non-adherence in the multivariate analysis, while having asthma remained in the limits of the significance (OR 1.44 [95%CI: 0.97-2.14]). Even though non-adherence to inhalers is more frequently observed in asthma than in COPD patients and exhibited a different non-adherence patterns, these differences are more likely to be related to sociodemographic characteristics. However, differences in non-adherence patterns should be considered when designing specific education programmes tailored to each disease.

Our aim was to study the asthma control achieved in patients with uncontrolled asthma who had received appropriate treatment according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2010 (valid at the time the study was designed), and to analyse the factors associated with a lack of asthma control.This was a multicentre study in routine clinical practice performed in patients with uncontrolled asthma according to GINA 2010. At visit 1, we recorded demographics, asthma characteristics and spirometry. We assessed asthma control using GINA 2010 criteria and the Asthma Control Test (ACT). Treatment was optimised according to GINA 2010. At visit 2, 3 months later, we reassessed spirometry, asthma control and factors associated with failure to achieve control.We recruited 1299 patients with uncontrolled asthma (mean age 46.5±17.3 years, 60.7% women, 25.8% obese). The mean percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s was 76.4±12.8% and the mean post-bronchodilator increase was 14.9±6.8%. We observed poor agreement between ACT and GINA 2010 when evaluating asthma control (kappa = -0.151). At visit 2, asthma in 71.2% of patients was still not fully controlled. Patients whose asthma remained uncontrolled were older, had a higher body mass index, greater disease severity, longer disease evolution and worse lung function.After treatment optimisation, most patients did not achieve optimal control according to GINA 2010. Risk factors for failure to achieve asthma control were time of disease evolution, severity, age, weight and lung function impairment (excluded in the GINA 2014).

BackgroundThe measurement of fractional nitric oxide concentration in exhaled breath (FeNO), a noninvasive indicator of airway inflammation, remains controversial as a tool to assess asthma control. Guidelines currently limit asthma control assessment to symptom and spirometry based appraisals such as the Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 (ACQ-7). We aimed at determining whether adding FeNO to ACQ-7 improves current asthma clinical control assessment, through enhanced detection of not well controlled asthma.MethodsAsthmatic subjects, classified as not well controlled as per ACQ-7 on regular clinical practice, were included in a prospective, multicenter fashion, and had their maintenance treatment adjusted on visit 1. On follow-up (visit 2) four weeks later, the subjects were reevaluated as controlled or not well controlled using ACQ-7 versus a combination of FeNO and ACQ-7.ResultsOut of 381 subjects enrolled, 225 (59.1%) had not well controlled asthma on visit 2 as determined by ACQ-7, and 264 (69.3%) as per combined FeNO and ACQ-7. The combination of FeNO to ACQ-7 increased by 14.8% the detection of not well controlled asthma following maintenance therapy adjustment.ConclusionsThe addition of FeNO to ACQ-7 increased the detectability of not well controlled asthma upon adjustment of maintenance therapy. Adding a measure of airway inflammation to usual symptom and spirometry based scores increases the efficacy of current asthma clinical control assessment.

IntroductionCardiovascular (CV) disease affects a high percentage of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), especially in the hospital setting, impacting on mortality, complications, quality of life and use of health resources. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence, mean length of hospital stay (LOHS) and costs attributable to hospital admissions due to CV events in patients with T2DM versus patients without diabetes mellitus (non-DM) in Spain.Research design and methodsRetrospective observational study based on the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database for 2015. Hospital admissions for patients aged ≥35 years with a diagnosis of CV death, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI), non-fatal stroke, unstable angina, heart failure and revascularization were evaluated. The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (250.x0 or 250.x2) coding was used to classify records of patients with T2DM. For each CV complication, the hospital discharges of the two groups, T2DM and non-DM, were precisely matched and the number of hospital discharges, patients, LOHS and mean cost were quantified. Additional analyses assessed the robustness of the results.ResultsOf the 276 925 hospital discharges analyzed, 34.71% corresponded to patients with T2DM. A higher incidence was observed in all the CV complications studied in the T2DM population, with a relative risk exceeding 2 in all cases. The mean LOHS (days) was longer in the T2DM versus the non-DM group for: non-fatal AMI (7.63 vs 7.02, p<0.001), unstable angina (5.11 vs 4.78, p=0.009) and revascularization (7.96 vs 7.57, p<0.001). The mean cost per hospital discharge was higher in the T2DM versus the non-DM group for non-fatal AMI (€6891 vs €6876, p=0.029) and unstable angina (€3386 vs €3304, p<0.001).ConclusionsPatients with T2DM had a higher incidence and number of hospital admissions per patient due to CV events versus the non-DM population. This generates a significant clinical and economic burden given the longer admission stay and higher costs associated with some of these complications.