Asthma Control According to the Community Pharmacists: Evidence and Potential Implications from an Italian Cross-Sectional Study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-26577/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Asthma Control According to the Community Pharmacists: Evidence and Potential Implications from an Italian Cross-Sectional Study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-26577/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 05 Jan, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Public Health →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background. Asthma control and monitoring still represents a challenge worldwide. Although the international guidelines suggest the interplay with primary care as an effective strategy, the community pharmacies’are rarely involved in asthma management.

The present cross-sectional study aimed at providing a picture of the relationship between asthma severity and control according to the community pharmacies’ perspective of the health district of Verona (North-Eastern Italy).

Methods. A call for participation was launched through the Pharmacists’ Association of Verona.Patients referring to the participating pharmacies with an anti-asthmatic drug medical prescription and an asthma exemption code were asked to completethe Asthma Control Testand a brief questionnaire collecting information on their age, sex, smoking status, aerobic physical exercise and usual asthma therapy, which also defined the severity level of asthma.A multinomial logistic regression model was fitted to investigate the risk of uncontrolled as well as poorly controlled vs. controlled asthma (base). Results were expressed as relative risk ratios (RRR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

Results.57 community pharmacies accepted to participate and 584 asthmatic patients (54% females; mean-age: 51 ± 19 years) were recruited. According to the ACT score 50.5% patients hada controlled asthma, 22.3% a poorly controlled and 27.2% uncontrolled. A variable proportion patients with uncontrolled asthma was observed at every level of severity, although more frequently in mild persistent form of disease. Most patients (92%) reported regular compliance with therapy. At multinomial regression analysis, patients under regular asthma treatment course (RRR=0.33; 95%CI: 0.15; 0.77) were less likely to have an ACT<16 compared to those not taking medications regularly.

Conclusions.Overall, our findings highlighted an unsatisfactory asthma control from the pharmacists’ perspective, independently of the asthma severity level. The relevance of community pharmacies as a first line interface suggest their involvement inan effective asthma management plan, from disease control and treatment compliance assessment to referral of asthmatic patients to medical consultancies.

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Infectious Diseases

Health Policy

community pharmacies

asthma

control

asthma control test

treatment compliance

Asthma is one of the most common chronic disorders on a global scale, with a prevalence in the general population ranging from 1–18% [1–3].

The burden of asthma includes considerable financial impact in terms of direct (health care services, medications) and indirect (sickness absence from work, disability, other) costs [1, 2, 4].

The most striking contradiction in asthma is a general lack of its control [5–8], even for milder cases, despite the availability of very effective drugs which have been proven to be effective in most patients, if regularly taken [9].

Several countries have been adopting national plans to manage asthma, with the aim to improve its control and contain its impact, yet with unsatisfactory health outcomes [1, 12–14]. Since they frequently represent the first point of contact for patients affected by chronic conditions, the involvement of primary care services in asthma management has been suggested as a successful strategy to improve the control of the disease [1, 15]. In particular, in several countries the involvement of community pharmacies has already proven to offer an efficient support for the management of chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and, with more limited evidence, asthma [16]. Nonetheless, community pharmacies are still largely underused to promote health in the general population in high-income countries [17].

Usually patients have good relationships with their local pharmacists, they rely on them and are more comfortable in that health care setting than in a medical environment. Moreover, pharmacists are more easily accessible for patients, also because an appointment is not required. As a result, local pharmacies may be extremely relevant in promoting behavioural changes aimed at improving healthy life-styles and treatment adherence to medications for various conditions, which considerably impacts on health care costs for the national health services (NHS) [17]. Furthermore, pharmacists can contribute to disease control assessment and medical referral if need be. In the case of asthma, easy to use and accurate tools for at a glance disease control evaluation are currently available. For instance, the asthma control test (ACT) is a standardized and validated five-item questionnaire measuring asthma control [10]. Although being easy-to-use, ACT is still underused by general practitioners (GPs) and medical consultants [11].

Aim of the study

In view of the above, the present cross-sectional study aimed at assessing the role of community pharmacists in the assessment and control of asthma within the health district of Verona (North-Eastern Italy).

Ethical approval

The Ethic Committee of the Pharmacists’ Association of Verona Health District approved the study protocol. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

a. Community pharmacies

By expanding a previous pilot study [18], a call for participation was launched through the local Pharmacists’ Association, which includes all the community pharmacies in the Verona health district. Before the study start, pharmacists attended a two-sessions seminar on bronchial asthma, its management, study design and study tools.The study lasted six months, from the 1st of January 2018 to 30th of June 2018.

b. Patients

Within the study time frame,consenting patients referring to the participating pharmacies with an anti-asthmatic drug medical prescription and an asthma exemption code were consecutively recruited. The asthma exemption code (007-493) enables patients to access free health care and medications related to their asthma condition and is released by the Italian NHS to individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of bronchial asthma, based on clinical history and lung function tests. The asthma exemption code therefore allows to accurately identify asthmatic patients.

Participating study subjects were asked to complete the Asthma Control Test (ACT, see below) and a brief questionnaire collecting information on their age, sex, smoking status, aerobic physical exercise andhabitual asthma therapy, which also defines the severity of asthma according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)recommendations [20].

c. Asthma Control assessment

Asthma control was assessed through ACT, a validated 5 item questionnaire which provides a snapshot on the degree of asthma control achieved over the past four weeks [19].Theoverall ACT scoreattained by answering each of the five questions classifies asthma control as follows:

20-25: well controlled;
16 -19: partially controlled;
≤ 16: uncontrolled

In the presence of a score < 16 the patient was recommended to refer to his GP/medical consultantas soon as possible.

d. Statistical analysis

Numbers and percentages of each variable (age, sex, smoking status, aerobic physical exercise, ACT, asthma level, habitual asthma therapy) were estimated. Furthermore, the mean, standard deviation, median and range were calculated for age and ACT.A multinomial logistic regression model was fitted to investigate the risk of uncontrolled (ACT 16-19) as well as poorly controlled (ACT<16) asthma compared to controlled asthma (Base=ACT 20+), adjusting for sex, age, asthma treatment regimen (regular vs. non-regular) and asthma level (coded from 1 to 5). Results were expressed as relative risk ratios (RRR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

Asthma coded as “unclassified” was classified as missing.All missing data were excluded, and complete case analysis was performed.

Analysis was carried out with Stata 14 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA).

Overall 57 community pharmacies (41% out of all pharmacies within the catchment area of Verona health district) participated to the study, with671 asthma patients consecutively recruited.Complete data were available for 584 out of 671 patients enrolled. Patients’ demographic informationcan be seen in Table 1.Study subjects were predominantly females (54%) and had a mean age of 51±19 years, with 53% of them being older than 50. The mean age of female patients(52.1 years) was slightly higher than males’ (48.6 years). Most study subjects were non-smokers (54.4%),19.2% were current smokers, and 26.4%ex-smokers. Although the majority of female patients were never-smokers (60.0 % females vs. 48.3% males), the proportion of ex-smokers was higher among males (30.8% males vs. 22.8% females).

Table 1

Distribution of variables by sex of patients. Number (N), column percentage (column %); mean ± standard deviation (SD); median, range. M = missing values.
FACTORS	STRATA	TOTAL	MALES	FEMALES
FACTORS	STRATA	Column %
N. pharmacies		57
Sex (M: 87)	Female	316 (54.1)
Sex (M: 87)	Male	268 (45.9)
Age (years) (M: 86)	Mean ± SD	51 ± 19.9			48.6 ± 20.7	53.1 ± 19.0
	Median (range)	53 (4–92)	48.5 (7–92)	55 (4–90)
	< 36	144 (24.6)	80 (29.9)	63 (19.9)
	36–50	128 (21.9)	63 (23.5)	65 (20.6)
	51–65	144 (24.6)	54 (20.2)	90 (28.5)
	66+	169 (28.9)	71 (26.5)	98 (31.0)
Smoking status (M: 145)	No	286 (54.4)	113 (48.3)	171 (60.0)
	Yes	101 (19.2)	49 (20.9)	49 (17.2)
	Ex	139 (26.4)	72 (30.8)	65 (22.8)
Aerobic exercise (M: 192)	No	183 (38.2)	70 (35.7)	92 (38.2)
	Yes	292 (61.0)	125 (63.8)	146 (60.6)
	Unclassified	4	1 (0.5)	3 (1.2)
ACT (M: 6)	Mean ± SD	18.5 ± 5.2	18.7 ± 4.8	18.9 ± 4.8
	Median (range)	20 (5–25)	20 (5–25)	20 (5–25)
	20+ (controlled)	336 (50.5)	137 (51.7)	171 (54.5)
	16–19 (uncontrolled)	148 (22.3)	67 (25.3)	65 (20.7)
	< 16 (poorly controlled)	181 (27.2)	61 (23.0)	78 (24.8)
Asthma Level (M: 96)	1 (intermittent)	76 (13.2)	31 (12.7)	44 (14.9)
	2 (mild)	129 (22.4)	50 (20.5)	79 (26.7)
	3 (moderate persistent)	219 (38.1)	109 (44.7)	108 (34.7)
	4 (sever persistent)	86 (15.0)	34 (13.9)	32 (10.8)
	5 (severe difficut asthma)	17 (3.0)	1 (0.4)	5 (1.7)
	Unclassified	48 (8.4)	19 (7.8)	28 (9.5)
Regular therapy (M: 148)	No	42 (8.0)	16 (7.3)	26 (9.6)
Regular therapy (M: 148)	Yes	481 (92.0)	204 (92.7)	246 (90.4)

Regular aerobic exercise was reported by 62%participants,with equaldistribution by sex. Most participants (92%) declared to assume anti-asthmatic treatment on a regular basis, with a rather homogeneous distribution between females and males.

When considering the ACT score, asthma was controlled in 50.5% patients (51.7% males vs. 54.5% females), partially controlled in 22.3% of them (25.3% males vs. 20.7% females) and uncontrolled in the remaining 27.2% patients (23% males vs. 24.8% females).

The stratification of patients by asthma severitywas as follows (Table 1):

- Intermittent: 76 patients (13.2%);

- Mild persistent: 129 patients (22.4%);

- Moderate persistent: 219 patients (38.1%);

-Severe persistent: 86 patients (15%);

- Severe difficult asthma: 17 patients (3%);

- Unclassified: 48 patients (8.4%).

The proportion of patients with mild asthma was higher among females (26.7%) than males (20.5%), whereas the prevalence of moderate (44.7% vs. 34.7%) and severe persistent disease (13.9% vs. 10.8%) was higher among males.

Table 2 and Figure 1 report the level of asthma control by severity of the disease. The mean ACT score was rather consistent across the various categories of disease severity, being lower only for severe asthma (level 5). By contrast, whilst the pattern of mean ACT was homogeneous among females,it increased by disease severity in males (Table 2).

Table 2

Distribution of asthma control test (ACT by severity of asthma and sex od patients. Number (N); row percentages (row %); Mean ±standard deviation (SD).
FACTORS	STRATA	ACT
		Mean ± SD	20+	16-19	<16
		Mean ± SD	Row %
All PATIENTS
Age	<50 years	19.2 ± 4.8	7 (2.7)	114 (43.9)	139 (53.5)
Age	50+ years	18.7± 4.6	16 (5.0)	135 (2.2)	169 (52.8)
Smoking status	Non-smoker	18.9 ± 4.63	9 (3.2)	123 )43.8)	149 (53.0)
	Smoker	19.6 ± 4.6	3 (3.0)	37 (37.0)	60 (60.)
	Ex-smoker	19.6 ±4.4	3 (2.2)	56 (40.3)	80 (57.6)
Asthma Level	1	19.0 ± 5.1	36 (47.4)	16 (21.1)	24 (31.6)
	2	19.6 ± 4.3	76 (59.4)	31 (24.2)	21 (16.4)
	3	19.3 ± 4.5	123 (56.4)	47 (21.6)	48 (22.0)
	4	19.3 ± 4.7	47 (55.3)	17 (20.0)	21 (24.7)
	5	16.2 ± 5.8	6 (35.3)	3 (17.7)	8 (47.1)
	Unclassified	18.8 ± 4.3	21 (46.7)	14 (31.1)	10 (22.2)
MALES
Asthma Level	1	1.7 ± 5.2	13 (41.9)	9 (29.0)	9 (29.0)
	2	19.0 ± 4.5	26 (52.0)	16 (32.0)	8 (16.0)
	3	19.2 ± 4.7	64 (58.7)	18 (16.5)	27 (24.8)
	4	20.5 ± 4.1	21 (63.6)	7 (21.2)	5 (15.2)
	5	8	0	0	1
	Unclassified	18.9 ± 3.9	8 (47.1)	6 (35.3)	3 (17.7)
FEMALES
Asthma Level	1	18.1 ± 5.1	23 (52.3)	6 (13.6)	15 (34.1)
	2	19.9 ± 4.2	50 (64.1)	15 (19.2)	13 (16.7)
	3	19.5 ± 4.3	59 (55.1)	27 (25.3)	21 (19.6)
	4	19.2 ± 5.3	19 (59.4)	4 (12.5)	9 (28.2)
	5	17.2 ± 3.9	2 (40.0)	2 (40.0)	1 (20.0)
	Unclassified	18.7 ± 4.7	13 (46.4)	8 (28.6)	7 (25.0)

A lower proportion of patients with poorly controlled asthma (ACT<16)was found among those affected by mild disease (16.4%), with similar pattern between females and males. Among patients with uncontrolled asthma (ACT =16-19), the proportion with moderate persistent disease was higher in females (25.3%) than males (16.5%), whereas the percentage of patients with severe persistent disease was higher among males (21.2%)than females(12.5%).Among patients with poorly controlled asthma (ACT<16) the percentage with moderate persistent disease was higher among males (24.8%)thanfemales (19.6%), whereas more females had severe persistent asthma (29.2% females vs. 15.2% males).

Table 3 shows the results of the multinomial logistic regression analysis investigating the risk of uncontrolled (ACT 16-19) and poorly controlled (ACT <16) vs. controlled asthma (base), after removing the effect of sex, age, treatment adherence and asthma level. As can be seen, patients under regular asthma treatment course (RRR=0.33; 95%CI: 0.15; 0.77) were less likely to have an ACT<16 compared to those not taking medications regularly.

Table 3

Multinomial logistic regression analysis for the probability of asthma control test (ACT) of 16–19 and < 16 over ACT > 19 (base). Multiple regression model adjusted for sex, age, reported treatment adherence and asthma severity. Number (N); row percentage (%); relative risk ratio (RRR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). 444 complete (case analysis) observations.
FACTORS	STRATA	ACT 20+ (Base)	ACT 16–19		ACT < 16
FACTORS	STRATA	N (%)	N (%)	RRR (95%CI)	N (%)	RRR (95%CI)
Regular therapy	No	17 (40.5)	11 (26.2)	Reference	14 (33.3)	reference
Regular therapy	Yes	103 (21.6)	98 (20.6)	0.45 (0.20; 1.22)	276 (57.9)	0.33 (0.15; 0.77)
Asthma level	1	36 (47.4)	16 (21.1)	reference	24 (31.6)	reference
	2	76 (59.4)	31 (24.2)	1.44 (0.56; 3.72)	21 (16.4)	0.46 (0.21; 1.00)
	3	123 (55.3)	47 (21.6)	1.48 (0.60; 3.68)	48 (22.0)	0.58 (0.29; 1.16)
	4	47 (55.3)	17 (20.0)	1.10 (0.38; 3.24)	21 (24.7)	0.58 (0.25; 1.38)
	5	6 (35.3)	3 (17.7)	4.16 (0.49; 35.65)	8 (47.1)	1.63 (0.21; 13.0)

Our study explored the disease control of asthmatic patients in a community pharmacysetting. According to the ACT score, 50.5% patients were controlled, 22.3% poorly controlled and 27.2% uncontrolled. A variable proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma was observed at every level of severity, although more frequently in those affected by mild persistent asthma. Mostpatients (92%) reported regular compliance with prescribed treatment. Treatment adherence wasthe only significant determinant for thedisease control, after removing the effect of all other factors.

Asthma control still represents a challenge worldwide [7,8] and the community pharmacies have been identified as a relevant partner in sharing this challenge with physicians [16]. Pharmacists canoffer a first point of contact with the health care services to patients,easy to access for disease counselling and symptom relief. In his way,community pharmacies somehow compensate the difficult access of patients to hospitalcare as well asthe limited time for consultationsdedicated inGPs [16,18].

Although the involvement of primary care (particularly pharmacists) in asthma control is recommended by current international guidelines [20], only a few studies have been conducted on this topic and none has been carried out in Italy [21-24]

According to our results the level of asthma control assessed by ACTwas overall higher in comparison withstudies using the same tool but conducted in a medical setting in Italy [5-8]orin community pharmacies of other European countries [21-24]. Some reasons may account for this discrepancy. The mean age of our study population is >50 years, whilst in previous studies reporting a worse asthma control, a higher proportion of younger patients wererecruited. It has been previously reported that the prevalence of uncontrolled asthma is higher among young adults and adolescents [25].The older age of our patients raises issues ofdifferential diagnosis with other chronic respiratory conditions, particularlychronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); in which casethe ACT may provide an unreliable score as it is not a validated instrument for obstructive syndromes other than asthma.However, the inclusion of the exemption code (007-493) among patients’ selection criteria allowed us to overcome this confounding factor. On the other side,it is well known that patients’ reported outcomes do not always tally withobjective measurable indicators[26,27].

Overall, our findings highlight an unsatisfactory asthma control from the pharmacists’ perspective, independently of the asthma severity level. The main determinant of asthma control was treatment adherence and not the disease severity or other patient-related features.

The present study addressed two relevant points:

the assessment of asthma control in the general population; and
the potential role of community pharmacies in managing the disease.

Regarding the first issue, our main finding wasthat a low treatment adherence was the only determinant of poor asthma control (ACT<16). Although this result may be intuitive, it highlights the importance of the local pharmacies in monitoring treatment compliance for asthma, a critical aspect to control the disease.

Patients recruited in the present study showed a surprisingly high treatment adherence (92%), which seems unreliable, as typicallypatients tend to overvalue their compliance to therapy [26]. Further, this finding is in contrast with actual data from the Italian regulatory agency [27]. Nonetheless, the prevalence of patients with moderate and severe persistent asthma in our population may account for higher treatment adherence due to the severity of their disease. Moreover, since adult or elderly patients are more familiar and comfortable with the local pharmacists,they receive more frequent adviceon the need of regular asthma therapy.

On the other hand, in the present study the lack of asthma control was more common among patients with mild persistent asthma. This finding is not surprising, as in our previous pilot study we reported a 31% prevalence of uncontrolled asthma in a GP setting [8]. It is plausible that the presence of intermittent symptoms led these patients to a treatment on demand, with a consequent overuse of beta-2 short agonists and underuse of inhaled steroids. Moreover, these patients prefer self-medication than regular follow-up by their GPs or by medical consultants. However, the risk of fatal asthma is still possiblewith mild persistentdisease, as recently reported [28].

Our study confirmed the potential role of local pharmacies in the management of asthma, giving patients the opportunity to be counselled ondisease control outside medical settings. However, whilst the positive results of this study suggest feasibility of asthma control at a local pharmacy level in real life, an overall inclusion of community pharmacist is a challenging target, as not allof themmay be interested in be involved in a similar health plan, ratingit demanding and time consuming, particularly in periods of the year of high morbidity withintense access to pharmacies [29]. Therefore, in addition tocareful selection of well trained, motivated community pharmacists, within a structured health plan, value-based incentives (VBI) programs may also be considered. Similar to other health care settings (e.g. GP practices), financial incentives could be granted to pharmacies to accomplish quality health outcomes in patients [17]. Beside assessment of asthma control, trained pharmacists have also the opportunity to teach patients about the disease and the proper use of medical devices,thus facilitatingpatients’ engagement [30]. Moreover, the local pharmacy could also be an optimal setting to deliver spirometry tests for a fee. However, despitecharging patients for spirometry could motivate the participation of pharmacists in asthma control plans, similarmeasuresare still open to debate, sincethe interpretation of spirometry entailsspecific competences that should be limited to trained and certified pharmacies[31]. Finally, community pharmacies should be encouraged to provide counselling on smoking cessation, as in our study population one out of five asthmatic patients was a smoker.

The community pharmacy is an underuse yet widely accessible primary care setting potentially useful to promote the health of the general population [17].Due to the high prevalence of asthma, the inclusion of other allied healthcare professionals, such as the community pharmacists may represent a step forward to be considered with the view of improving the control of the disease. The main determinant for asthma control would appear to be compliance with therapy. Patients with chronic conditions may face barriers to access burdenedhealth care services in high income countries. Allied health professionals as local pharmacies may provide critical cost-effective support to screen patients for theirrisk of asthma, increase their knowledge of the disease, assess asthma control, improve inhalation techniques and follow up their treatment compliance.

ACT

Asthma Control Test

Confidence Interval

COPD

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

GINA

Global Initiative for Asthma

General practitioner

NHS

National Health Service

RRR

Relative Risk Ratio

VBI

Value-Based Incentive

Conflict of Interest

LC is Associate Editor of BMC Public Health. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

None

Authors’ contributions:

GS and MC designed the study, coordinated the data collection; interpreted the data and wrote the original draft; LC analysed/interpreted the data and wrote the original draft; MB & NS coordinated the data collection and contributed to draft the manuscript; AD, CB, BO, FB provided technical clinical advise and contributed to draft the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethical Committee of the Pharmacists’ Association of Verona Health District approved the study protocol. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Availability of data and material

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available, since they were purposively collected by the authors for the present study, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Armour C, Bosnic-Anticevich S, Brillant M, Burton D, Emmerton L, Krass I, Saini B, Smith L, Stewart K. Pharmacy Asthma Care Program (PACP) improves outcomes for patients in the community. Thorax. 2007;62:496–502.
Bousquet J, Bousquet PJ, Godard P, et al. The public health implications of asthma. Bull WHO. 2005;83:548–54.
Wijnant SRA, Lahousse L, De Buyzere ML, Brusselle GG, Rietzschel ER. Prevalence of Asthma and COPD and Blood Eosinophil Count in a Middle-Aged Belgian Population. J Clin Med. 2019 Jul 28;8(8).
Australian Centre for Asthma Monitoring. Health care expenditure and the burden of disease due to asthma in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2005. p. 43.
Cazzoletti L, Marcon A, Janson C, Corsico A, Jarvis D, et al. Asthma control in Europe. A real world evaluation based on an international population-based study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120:1360–7.
Corrado A, Renda T, Polese G, Rossi A. SERENA (Studio ossERvazionalE per il monitoraggio dell'asma non coNtrollAto)/AIPO Study Group. Assessment of asthma control: the SERENA study. Respir Med. 2013;107:1659–66.
Magnoni MS, Latorre M, Bettoncelli G, Sanchez-Herrero MG, Lopez A, Calvo E, Rizzi A, Caminati M, Senna G, Paggiaro P. World Allergy Organ J. 2017; 6;10:13.
Caminati M, Bettoncelli G, Magnoni MS, Rizzi A, Testi R, Passalacqua G, De Marco R, Caramori G, Senna G. The level of control of mild asthma in general practice: an observational community-based study. J Asthma. 2014;51:91–6.
Bateman ED, Boushey HA, Bousquet J, Busse WW, Clark TJ, Pauwels RA, Pedersen SE. Can guideline-defined control be achieved ?. The Gaining Optimal Asthma Control study. Am Resp Crit Care Med. 2004;170:836–44.
Nathan RA, Sorkness CA, Kosinski M, et al. Development of the asthma control test: a survey for assessing asthma control. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;117:59–65.
Caminati M, Magnoni MS, Rizzi A, Braido F, Foresi A, et al. Asthma management among different specialists: results from a national Italian survey. Eur Ann Allergy Immunol. 2014;46:74–82.
Adams RJ, Fuhlbrigge A, Guilbert T, et al. Inadequate use of asthma medication in the United States: results of the asthma in America national population survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;110:58–64.
De Marco R, Bugiani M, Cazzoletti L, et al. The control of asthma in Italy. A multicentre descriptive study on young adults with doctor diagnosed current asthma. Allergy. 2003;58:221–8.
Rabe KF, Adachi M, Lai CKW, et al. Worldwide severity and control of asthma in children and adults: the global asthma insights and reality surveys. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114:40–7.
Goeman DP, Aroni RA, Sawyer SM, et al. Back for more: a qualitative study of emergency department reattendance for asthma. Med J Aust. 2004;180:113–7.
Senna G, Caminati M, Bovo C, Canonica GW, Passalacqua G. The role of the pharmacy in the management of bronchial asthma: A literature-based evaluation. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017 Feb;118(2):161–5.
Pringle JL, Rucker NL, Domann D, Chan C, Tice B, Burns AL. Applying Value-Based Incentive Models Within Community Pharmacy Practice. Am J Pharm Benefits. 2016;8(1):22–9.
Caminati M, Senna G, Segala N, Bacchini M, Stefanizzi G, Bovo C, Schiappoli M, Canonica GW. Passalacqua G.Evaluation of asthma control in the pharmacy: an Italian cross-sectional study. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;49(5):225–30.
Thosteindottir B, Gerald W, Volcheck W. Madsen E, et al. The ABC of asthma control. Mayo Clkin Proc. 2008;83:814–20.
Global initiative for asthma – GINA https://ginasthma.org/ (last accessed in. April 2020).
Laforest L, Van Ganse E, Devouassoux G, Chretin S, Bauguil G, Pacheco Y, Chamba G. Quality of asthma care: resultsfrom a community pharmacy based survey. Allergy. 2005;60:1505–10.
Mehuys E, Van Bortel L, Annemans L, Remon JP, Van Tongelen I, Van Ganse E, Laforest L, Chamba G. Brusselle G.Medication use and disease control of asthmatic patients in Flanders: a cross-sectional community pharmacy study. Respir Med. 2006;100:1407–14.
Laforest L, Van Ganse E, Devouassoux G, Osman LM, Brice K, Massol J, Bauguil G, Chamba G. Asthmatic patients'poor awareness of inadequate disease control: a pharmacy-based survey. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;98(2):146–52.
Mendes Z, Madeira A, Suzete C, Sonia I, Marianela V, Artur TA, Antonio SL, Mario M. Asthma Control Assessment using Asthma Control Test in Portugese Pharmacies. Rev Port Imunoalergologia. 2010;18(4):313–30.
Pongracic JA, Krouse RZ, Babineau DC, Zoratti EM, Cohen RT, et al. Distinguishing characterisitics of difficult-to-control asthma in inner-city children and adoscescents. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;138:1030–41.
Jentzsch NS, Camargos PA, Colosimo EA, Bousquet J. Monitoring adherence to beclomethasone in asthmatic children and adolescents through four different methods. Allergy. 2009 Oct;64(10):1458–62.
AIFA Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Rapporto OSMED. www.aifa.gov.it. (last accessed in April 2020).
Vianello A, Caminati M, Crivellaro M, El Mazloum R, Snenghi R, Schiappoli M, Dama A, Rossi A, Festi G, Marchi MR, Bovo C, Canonica GW, Senna G. Fatal asthma; is it still an epidemic? World Allergy Organ J. 2016 Dec;14(1):42. 9(.
Van Mil JW, Tromp TF. European barriers to the implementation of pharmaceutical care. Int J Pharm. 2001;9:163–8.
Reddel HK, Bosnic-Anticevich SZ, Armour CL, Basheti I. Pharmacy intervention in asthma. Eur Resp J. 2008;32:812.
Cawley MG, Warning WJ. Pharmacists performing quality spirometry testing: an evidence based review. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015 Oct;37(5):726–33.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 05 Jan, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Public Health →

Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
25 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
22 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
26 May, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
04 May, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
03 May, 2020
Editor invited by journal
03 May, 2020
First submitted to journal
30 Apr, 2020

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Asthma Control According to the Community Pharmacists: Evidence and Potential Implications from an Italian Cross-Sectional Study

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Aim of the study

Methods

Ethical approval

a. Community pharmacies

b. Patients

c. Asthma Control assessment

d. Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Funding

Authors’ contributions:

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Availability of data and material

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1