Defined daily dose definition in medication adherence assessment in asthma.

IF 1.8 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM European Clinical Respiratory Journal Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20018525.2023.2207335
Päivi Saukkosalmi, Hannu Kankaanranta, Iida Vähätalo, Lauri Sillanmäki, Markku Sumanen
{"title":"Defined daily dose definition in medication adherence assessment in asthma.","authors":"Päivi Saukkosalmi,&nbsp;Hannu Kankaanranta,&nbsp;Iida Vähätalo,&nbsp;Lauri Sillanmäki,&nbsp;Markku Sumanen","doi":"10.1080/20018525.2023.2207335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has been described as poor. In adherence studies, if the actual prescribed dosing is not available, generic defined daily doses (DDD) are applied instead when assessing adherence. We evaluated asthma patients' adherence in a large prospective follow-up survey. We also analysed whether World Health Organization (WHO) and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) reference doses give different results. The current study was cross-sectional and included respondents attending to HeSSup follow-up questionnaire in 2012. Altogether 1,141 of 12,854 adult participants answered positively to the question about having asthma. According to the Finnish Social Insurance Institutions' medication register, 686 of them had purchased ICS medication during 2011. DDDs for ICS by WHO as well as medium doses from GINA report were used as reference doses to evaluate adherence. To estimate adherence to ICS, the proportion of days covered (PDC) over one year was calculated for every patient. If the lower limit of GINA medium ICS dose was used as a reference, 65% of the patients were adherent (PDC ≥ 80%). Use of WHO's DDD as reference halved the proportion of adherent patients. Adherence was higher among those using a combination inhaler of corticosteroid and long-acting β<sub>2</sub>-agonist compared to those using steroid only inhalers. Use of WHO's daily defined doses as reference values may lead to underestimation of adherence to inhaled corticosteroids. Thus, attention should be paid when choosing the reference doses for the evaluation of adherence to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma.</p>","PeriodicalId":11872,"journal":{"name":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":"2207335"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/18/c3/ZECR_10_2207335.PMC10150619.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20018525.2023.2207335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has been described as poor. In adherence studies, if the actual prescribed dosing is not available, generic defined daily doses (DDD) are applied instead when assessing adherence. We evaluated asthma patients' adherence in a large prospective follow-up survey. We also analysed whether World Health Organization (WHO) and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) reference doses give different results. The current study was cross-sectional and included respondents attending to HeSSup follow-up questionnaire in 2012. Altogether 1,141 of 12,854 adult participants answered positively to the question about having asthma. According to the Finnish Social Insurance Institutions' medication register, 686 of them had purchased ICS medication during 2011. DDDs for ICS by WHO as well as medium doses from GINA report were used as reference doses to evaluate adherence. To estimate adherence to ICS, the proportion of days covered (PDC) over one year was calculated for every patient. If the lower limit of GINA medium ICS dose was used as a reference, 65% of the patients were adherent (PDC ≥ 80%). Use of WHO's DDD as reference halved the proportion of adherent patients. Adherence was higher among those using a combination inhaler of corticosteroid and long-acting β2-agonist compared to those using steroid only inhalers. Use of WHO's daily defined doses as reference values may lead to underestimation of adherence to inhaled corticosteroids. Thus, attention should be paid when choosing the reference doses for the evaluation of adherence to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哮喘患者服药依从性评估中的限定日剂量定义。
吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)的依从性被认为很差。在依从性研究中,如果没有实际的规定剂量,则在评估依从性时采用通用限定日剂量(DDD)。我们在一项大型前瞻性随访调查中评估了哮喘患者的依从性。我们还分析了世界卫生组织(WHO)和全球哮喘倡议(GINA)的参考剂量是否给出了不同的结果。目前的研究是横断面的,包括2012年参加HeSSup随访问卷的受访者。在12854名成年参与者中,共有1141人对患有哮喘的问题做出了肯定的回答。根据芬兰社会保险机构的药物登记,2011年期间,其中686人购买了ICS药物。采用WHO规定的ICS DDDs和GINA报告中的中剂量作为参考剂量评价依从性。为了评估ICS的依从性,计算每位患者一年的覆盖天数(PDC)比例。如果以GINA medium ICS剂量下限为参照,65%的患者贴壁(PDC≥80%)。使用世界卫生组织的DDD作为参考,使依从患者的比例减半。与仅使用类固醇吸入器的患者相比,使用皮质类固醇和长效β2激动剂联合吸入器的患者依从性更高。使用世卫组织每日确定剂量作为参考值可能导致低估吸入皮质类固醇的依从性。因此,在评估哮喘患者吸入性皮质类固醇依从性时,应注意选择参考剂量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the self evaluation of breathing questionnaire (SEBQ) into Danish. Factors behind favorable long-term lung cancer survival in Norway compared to Denmark: a retrospective cohort study. Socioeconomic status and emergency department visits in adults with a history of severe childhood asthma: a register-based study. Comorbid allergy and rhinitis and patient-related outcomes in asthma and COPD: a cross-sectional study. Lung function measurements in the Greenlandic Inuit population: results from the Greenlandic health survey 2017-2019.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1