|
|
||||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
* From Infomed Northwest (Dr. Stempel), Seattle, WA; NDCHealth (Dr. Roberts), Yardley, PA; and GlaxoSmithKline (Dr. Stanford), Research Triangle Park, NC.
Correspondence to: David A. Stempel, MD, 9121 Northeast Sixteenth St, Bellevue, WA 98004; e-mail: econmed{at}msn.com
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods: This retrospective observational study utilized an integrated managed care database that contained administrative claims from > 20 managed care plans across the United States. All patients with at least one ED visit for asthma during 2001 were included. Patients were required to have data available 12 months prior to and 2 months following the ED visit of interest, and were excluded if they had made an asthma-related ED visit within 12 months of the identified event.
Results: There were 12,636 patients identified with an asthma-related ED visit. In the year prior to the ED event, 25.1% of the patients received an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), 29.9% received an oral corticosteroid (OCS), and 53.5% received a short-acting ß-agonist (SABA). Overall, there were three albuterol units dispensed for every ICS unit dispensed in the 12-month period prior to the ED event. Ninety-four percent of patients had made an office visit in the prior year, but only 13.3% underwent spirometry testing. Prescriptions dispensed for ICSs and OCSs increased 2.6-fold and 7.5-fold, respectively, in the month after the ED event, and dispensing rates reverted approximately to baseline rates by the second month after the index ED event.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates the dependence of this population on the use of rescue medications, including SABA and OCS, to treat their asthma. Furthermore, the ED event resulted in only an incremental short-term improvement in ICS-containing controller treatment.
Key Words: asthma emergency department inhaled corticosteroids spirometry
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Wolfenden and colleagues12 have recently reported that physician underdiagnosis of asthma severity may lead to undertreatment. In addition, Adams and coworkers13 have demonstrated that the use of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of persistent asthma is inadequate, and may be related to lower income, less education, present unemployment, and active smoking. To date, there are limited data investigating the pattern of resource utilization prior to ED attendance. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines12 have recommended routine office visits and the objective measurement of lung function to promote a reduction in disease morbidity. The identification of treatment patterns of patients prior to an ED visit may help to identify potential opportunities for patient care interventions that may target and improve treatment regimens.
The present study was designed to describe the patterns of care observed in patients prior to the ED treatment for acute asthma. The primary area of interest was the exploration of adherence to guideline recommendations and, specifically, the use of ICSs, the preferred controller treatment, in the year prior to the ED visit. In addition, the study quantified the use of rescue medications, including OCSs and short-acting ß-agonists (SABAs). Furthermore, the impact of the acute care intervention in the ED on altering the prescription of ICSs and other asthma medications in the 2 months after the ED event was investigated. The frequency of office visits and the use of spirometry before and after the event were secondary measures of interest.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
6 years of age), and office visits associated with other diagnoses were collected by month. The number of claims for asthma medications dispensed was calculated as well as the number of patients receiving new asthma medications following the event. Prescription claims identified as asthma medications included SABAs, ICSs, long-acting ß-agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, cromones, theophylline, and OCSs. In this analysis, patients receiving fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in a single device were included in the ICS controller cohort.
Patients were identified from an integrated managed care database (PharMetrics; Watertown, MA), which is a collection of administrative claims from a number of managed care organizations distributed across the United States. These plans encompass a number of different models, including health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, and point of service plans, and can be considered to be representative of the current landscape of commercial health insurance in the United States. The database is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and has encrypted unique patient identifiers to integrate pharmacy and medical claims. Patients were included in the study if they had made an ED visit during 2001 with a primary diagnosis indicating treatment for asthma (International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, code 493.xx). Asthma-related ED visits were defined as any medical claim having a procedure code indicative of ED care (Current Procedural Code, 9928199288) or a hospital claim that included a UB-92 revenue code for ED care (RC45x). The date of the first ED visit of 2001 was defined as the patients index date. Patients were required to have been enrolled in the managed care plan for 12 months prior to and 2 months following the initial ED event of interest. Patients who had made any asthma-related inpatient or ED visit 12 months prior to the index event were excluded. These selection criteria were established to provide a standardized population and to define the effect of an initial ED event. Patients with an inpatient visit within 24 h of the initial ED visit were grouped into an "admitted" cohort, and the remaining patients were classified into a treated-and-released cohort. Statistical comparisons of the cohorts were conducted using t tests for continuous variables and
2 tests for categoric variables.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
At least one rescue SABA was dispensed to 53.5% of patients in the 12 months prior to the event. These patients received on average 4.11 canisters per year. Pharmacy records for the overall population revealed that there were three albuterol canisters dispensed for every ICS unit dispensed. In addition, the dispensing of a rescue medication (ie, a SABA) increased 330% in the month of the ED event and was increased by only 30% in the second month after an acute care episode. Figure 3 demonstrates the changes in prescriptions for controller and rescue medications in the 2 months prior and the 2 months after an ED visit.
|
6 years of age) in the 12 months before and the 2 months after the ED visit. There were no significant differences in the admitted and released cohorts for this parameter.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
National and international guidelines123 advocate ICSs as the preferred component of controller therapy for patients with persistent asthma for all ages and all levels of disease severity. This recommendation is based on an evidence-based review of the literature that demonstrates consistency in the following clinical end points: reduction in symptoms; fewer exacerbations; less dependency on rescue medication; and greatest improvement in lung functions.414151617 Furthermore, the use of ICSs has been identified as reducing exacerbations, including ED events and hospitalizations, in multiple observational studies.56789 This association may be strongest when refill persistence approaches 4 to 6 canisters per year.89 The magnitude of reduction in these resource-intensive events has not been noted with alternative controllers. The present study demonstrates that 75% of patients treated in the ED for asthma did not receive ICS controllers in the year prior to this event. In addition, in those patients who were dispensed an ICS, the mean refill persistence was less than three canisters per year.
One may have hypothesized that a severe acute exacerbation would have altered long-term treatment. Appropriately, patients received an increase in rescue medications of SABA and OCS in the month of the ED event. During the 2 months after the acute episode, approximately 20% of the patients started receiving ICS controller therapy. The initial increase in ICS use is still below guideline recommendations, but the decline by the second month after the index event demonstrates that the acute exacerbation had no sustained impact on dispensing of ICS controller medications.
The dispensing of ICSs and OCSs was consistent in the 12 months preceding the ED visit and in the second month after the acute episode. In the 12 months preceding the ED visit, > 90% of patients made an office visit, and nearly 50% of these visits were associated with an asthma-specific diagnosis prior to the acute event. However, this physician contact did not result in the implementation of guideline-recommended care. The recognition of the signs and symptoms of asthma by patient, family, or health-care providers may have identified patients requiring ICS controller therapy. The infrequent use of spirometry both before and after the ED visit may be indicative of a lack of constant monitoring of the disease, although future studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis. Furthermore, the underreporting of asthma symptoms by patients may lead to an underrecognition of the need for disease control by the physician, and can result in undertreatment with controller medications. An inaccurate assessment by the health-care provider further decreases the likelihood of appropriate controller therapy.12
There were three patienthealth-care provider events described in this analysis in which ICSs or other controller medications could have been prescribed. The first was in the health-care providers office prior to the ED event. Most patients had encounters with health-care providers before the ED visits, and the majority received one or more rescue medications prior to the ED event. Second was in the ED. Although typically not a place for maintenance medications to be prescribed, it is a site where the patient and family may focus on the severity of the acute asthma and may be more receptive to preventive care. Finally, after the ED event controller therapy could have been instituted at the follow-up visit. The majority of these patients had these three contacts with health-care providers, but, unfortunately for many of these patients, these interactions did not result in an increased use of controller medications. The reason why controller medication was not dispensed as a result of these contacts cannot be discerned from these data. However, it does suggest a need for increased awareness by health-care professionals and patients with asthma of the benefit of starting patients on controller therapy when there is evidence of persistent signs or symptoms, or evidence of disease morbidity.
This study has several limitations. The data records only the prescriptions dispensed. It does not report the prescriptions written and not filled, nor does it describe actual patient compliance with therapy. In addition, this initial ED visit may have been the sentinel asthma event for many of these patients, although the majority of patients were being given asthma medications in the 12 months before the acute flare-up of their respiratory symptoms. The 2-month follow-up time after the ED event may not be long enough to assess the impact of the ED event on medication use. However, the use of asthma medications at 2 months after the ED event were similar to monthly use before the event, suggesting a return to preindex event rates. Also, this analysis describes the treatment patterns of patients admitted to the ED for an asthma episode. The treatment patterns of asthma patients not admitted to the ED were not identified. The patients in this study were observed for the 12 months before the ED event with little variation from month to month, and this may possibly reflect the treatment patterns of those individuals not seen in the ED.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates the inadequate use of controller medications and the overreliance on rescue medications in patients attending the ED for treatment of acute asthma. Evidence-based guidelines have given clinicians and patients recommendations for care. Attention now needs to be focused on interventions that enhance implementation. Strategies that identify patients who are at risk need to focus on the ability of patient, family, and health-care workers to recognize the signs and symptoms that warrant ICS controller therapy. In addition, spirometry is important, especially in the patient who underreports symptoms. Guideline implementation needs to focus on concise and elegant strategies to decrease unnecessary variations in care and to assure that the preferred treatments regimens are prescribed and dispensed to patients who are at risk in order to decrease the number of patients treated for acute exacerbations of asthma in the ED.
| Footnotes |
|---|
This study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Dr. Stempel is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Dr. Roberts was an employee of NDCHealth at the time of article submission, and Dr. Stanford is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline.
Received for publication September 15, 2003. Accepted for publication February 13, 2004.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. R Fairall, M. Zwarenstein, E. D Bateman, M. Bachmann, C. Lombard, B. P Majara, G. Joubert, R. G English, A. Bheekie, D. van Rensburg, et al. Effect of educational outreach to nurses on tuberculosis case detection and primary care of respiratory illness: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial BMJ, October 1, 2005; 331(7519): 750 - 754. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Outpatient Treatment Patterns in ED Asthma Patients Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, August 25, 2004; 2004(825): 7 - 7. [Full Text] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |