美国哮喘患者嗜酸性粒细胞计数检测因医疗服务提供者类型而异:一项回顾性研究。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1186/s13223-024-00917-4
Sameer Mathur, Thomas Corbridge, Elizabeth Packnett, Krutika Jariwala-Parikh, Arijita Deb
{"title":"美国哮喘患者嗜酸性粒细胞计数检测因医疗服务提供者类型而异:一项回顾性研究。","authors":"Sameer Mathur, Thomas Corbridge, Elizabeth Packnett, Krutika Jariwala-Parikh, Arijita Deb","doi":"10.1186/s13223-024-00917-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype may be eligible for additional treatment options to improve disease control; however, the prevalence and frequency of eosinophil testing is unknown. This study assessed blood eosinophil count testing prevalence in patients with asthma by exacerbation frequency and healthcare provider (HCP) type.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective, longitudinal, real-world study (GSK ID: 214470) utilizing the Merative Explorys<sup>®</sup> Universe electronic health records database. Eligible patients had ≥ 2 asthma diagnostic codes (January 2016-December 2018) (Index date: first asthma diagnosis). Outcomes included patient demographics and clinical characteristics (12 months pre-index [baseline]), and prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing, stratified by exacerbation frequency (infrequent exacerbations [< 2]) or frequent exacerbations [≥ 2] or primary HCP (Allergist/Pulmonologist, a primary care physician [PCP] or other HCP) during the 12 months post-index (follow-up).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 400,254 patients included (mean age: 51.2 years; 70.8% female), the most common provider type at baseline was a PCP (76.8%). A higher proportion of patients with frequent exacerbations had blood eosinophil count tests at baseline (55.4-69.5%) and follow-up (67.9-75.1%), compared with patients with infrequent exacerbations (55.5-63.7%, 62.4-67.3%). Significantly more patients in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup had ≥ 1 blood eosinophil count test result compared with patients in the PCP subgroup at both baseline (59.9% vs. 50.7%; p < 0.001) and follow-up (59.0% vs. 56.2%; p < 0.001). In the total population, the mean (SD) number of tests ordered was 3.4 (5.3) and 4.1 (6.4) during the baseline and follow-up periods, respectively. A greater mean number of tests were ordered for patients with frequent exacerbations, most apparently in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup during baseline and follow-up (7.4 vs. 4.9). For patients with frequent exacerbations and blood eosinophil count test results, the mean (SD) number of tests ranged from 3.1 (4.6) to 5.8 (8.3) at baseline and 5.1 (8.5) to 7.4 (10.6) during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma remains suboptimal. Routine blood eosinophil count testing should be considered by HCPs for patients with asthma to increase identification of the eosinophilic asthma phenotype, which may inform the decision to advance to targeted biologic therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51302,"journal":{"name":"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology","volume":"20 1","pages":"56"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515424/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma varies by healthcare provider type in the US: a retrospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Sameer Mathur, Thomas Corbridge, Elizabeth Packnett, Krutika Jariwala-Parikh, Arijita Deb\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13223-024-00917-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype may be eligible for additional treatment options to improve disease control; however, the prevalence and frequency of eosinophil testing is unknown. This study assessed blood eosinophil count testing prevalence in patients with asthma by exacerbation frequency and healthcare provider (HCP) type.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective, longitudinal, real-world study (GSK ID: 214470) utilizing the Merative Explorys<sup>®</sup> Universe electronic health records database. Eligible patients had ≥ 2 asthma diagnostic codes (January 2016-December 2018) (Index date: first asthma diagnosis). Outcomes included patient demographics and clinical characteristics (12 months pre-index [baseline]), and prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing, stratified by exacerbation frequency (infrequent exacerbations [< 2]) or frequent exacerbations [≥ 2] or primary HCP (Allergist/Pulmonologist, a primary care physician [PCP] or other HCP) during the 12 months post-index (follow-up).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 400,254 patients included (mean age: 51.2 years; 70.8% female), the most common provider type at baseline was a PCP (76.8%). A higher proportion of patients with frequent exacerbations had blood eosinophil count tests at baseline (55.4-69.5%) and follow-up (67.9-75.1%), compared with patients with infrequent exacerbations (55.5-63.7%, 62.4-67.3%). Significantly more patients in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup had ≥ 1 blood eosinophil count test result compared with patients in the PCP subgroup at both baseline (59.9% vs. 50.7%; p < 0.001) and follow-up (59.0% vs. 56.2%; p < 0.001). In the total population, the mean (SD) number of tests ordered was 3.4 (5.3) and 4.1 (6.4) during the baseline and follow-up periods, respectively. A greater mean number of tests were ordered for patients with frequent exacerbations, most apparently in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup during baseline and follow-up (7.4 vs. 4.9). For patients with frequent exacerbations and blood eosinophil count test results, the mean (SD) number of tests ranged from 3.1 (4.6) to 5.8 (8.3) at baseline and 5.1 (8.5) to 7.4 (10.6) during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma remains suboptimal. Routine blood eosinophil count testing should be considered by HCPs for patients with asthma to increase identification of the eosinophilic asthma phenotype, which may inform the decision to advance to targeted biologic therapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515424/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00917-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00917-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:具有嗜酸性粒细胞表型的哮喘患者可能有资格选择其他治疗方案来改善疾病控制;然而,嗜酸性粒细胞检测的流行率和频率尚不清楚。本研究按哮喘加重频率和医疗保健提供者(HCP)类型评估了哮喘患者的血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数检测流行率:这是一项利用 Merative Explorys® Universe 电子健康记录数据库进行的回顾性纵向真实世界研究(GSK ID:214470)。符合条件的患者有≥2个哮喘诊断代码(2016年1月至2018年12月)(索引日期:首次哮喘诊断)。结果包括患者人口统计学特征和临床特征(指数前 12 个月 [基线]),以及血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数检测的流行率,并按加重频率分层(不经常加重 [结果:在纳入的 400,254 名患者中(平均年龄:51.2 岁;70.8% 为女性),基线时最常见的医疗服务提供者类型是初级保健医生(76.8%)。与不经常恶化的患者(55.5-63.7%、62.4-67.3%)相比,经常恶化的患者在基线(55.4-69.5%)和随访(67.9-75.1%)时接受血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数检测的比例更高。与初级保健医生亚组的患者相比,过敏症专家/肺科医生亚组的患者在两个基线(59.9% 对 50.7%;P 结论:在过敏症专家/肺科医生亚组中,有≥1 次血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数检测结果的患者明显多于初级保健医生亚组的患者:哮喘患者血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数检测的普及率仍不理想。保健医生应考虑对哮喘患者进行常规血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数检测,以提高对嗜酸性粒细胞性哮喘表型的识别率,从而为决定是否进行有针对性的生物治疗提供依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma varies by healthcare provider type in the US: a retrospective study.

Background: Patients with asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype may be eligible for additional treatment options to improve disease control; however, the prevalence and frequency of eosinophil testing is unknown. This study assessed blood eosinophil count testing prevalence in patients with asthma by exacerbation frequency and healthcare provider (HCP) type.

Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, real-world study (GSK ID: 214470) utilizing the Merative Explorys® Universe electronic health records database. Eligible patients had ≥ 2 asthma diagnostic codes (January 2016-December 2018) (Index date: first asthma diagnosis). Outcomes included patient demographics and clinical characteristics (12 months pre-index [baseline]), and prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing, stratified by exacerbation frequency (infrequent exacerbations [< 2]) or frequent exacerbations [≥ 2] or primary HCP (Allergist/Pulmonologist, a primary care physician [PCP] or other HCP) during the 12 months post-index (follow-up).

Results: Of 400,254 patients included (mean age: 51.2 years; 70.8% female), the most common provider type at baseline was a PCP (76.8%). A higher proportion of patients with frequent exacerbations had blood eosinophil count tests at baseline (55.4-69.5%) and follow-up (67.9-75.1%), compared with patients with infrequent exacerbations (55.5-63.7%, 62.4-67.3%). Significantly more patients in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup had ≥ 1 blood eosinophil count test result compared with patients in the PCP subgroup at both baseline (59.9% vs. 50.7%; p < 0.001) and follow-up (59.0% vs. 56.2%; p < 0.001). In the total population, the mean (SD) number of tests ordered was 3.4 (5.3) and 4.1 (6.4) during the baseline and follow-up periods, respectively. A greater mean number of tests were ordered for patients with frequent exacerbations, most apparently in the Allergist/Pulmonologist subgroup during baseline and follow-up (7.4 vs. 4.9). For patients with frequent exacerbations and blood eosinophil count test results, the mean (SD) number of tests ranged from 3.1 (4.6) to 5.8 (8.3) at baseline and 5.1 (8.5) to 7.4 (10.6) during follow-up.

Conclusions: The prevalence of blood eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma remains suboptimal. Routine blood eosinophil count testing should be considered by HCPs for patients with asthma to increase identification of the eosinophilic asthma phenotype, which may inform the decision to advance to targeted biologic therapy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
96
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology (AACI), the official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI), is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention and treatment of allergic and immunologic disease. By offering a high-visibility forum for new insights and discussions, AACI provides a platform for the dissemination of allergy and clinical immunology research and reviews amongst allergists, pulmonologists, immunologists and other physicians, healthcare workers, medical students and the public worldwide. AACI reports on basic research and clinically applied studies in the following areas and other related topics: asthma and occupational lung disease, rhinoconjunctivitis and rhinosinusitis, drug hypersensitivity, allergic skin diseases, urticaria and angioedema, venom hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and food allergy, immunotherapy, immune modulators and biologics, immune deficiency and autoimmunity, T cell and B cell functions, regulatory T cells, natural killer cells, mast cell and eosinophil functions, complement abnormalities.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of probiotics as adjuvant therapy in bronchial asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Zéro allergie research clinic: a clinical and research initiative in oral immunotherapy for managing IgE-mediated food allergy. A case report of fatal anaphylaxis on first exposure to rasburicase just before lymphoma treatment. Eosinophil count testing in patients with asthma varies by healthcare provider type in the US: a retrospective study. Safety and adherence of early oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy in a primary care setting: a retrospective cross-sectional study.
×
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