Search

Objective: Asthma is usually misdiagnosed and under-treated in the elderly population, resulting in complications and increased severity to the patient. In this review, we describe some of the most important serum markers of asthma studied so far, reporting their outcomes and possible prediction of asthma in the elderly population. Methods: The PubMed electronic database was used to search for promising serum biomarkers of asthma studied in original articles published in peer-reviewed journals from 2000 to January 2013. Results: A total of 13 relevant serum biomarkers were selected, including IgE, CRP, high sensitive CRP, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, TNF-α, neopterin, serum amyloid A, eosinophil cationic protein, leukolysin, YKL-40 and soluble CD86. Conclusions: Although the major focus of treatment and research has been on allergic asthma, several forms of the disease are recognized, such as neutrophilic asthma, which is characteristic of older patients. Different phenotypes imply different treatments and so it becomes important to correctly determine which type of asthma the patient is suffering from. Serum markers capable of supporting a diagnosis of asthma are needed in order to counter mistreatment and misdiagnosis with other obstructive airways disease (OAD) in elderly patients. As convenient as serum markers may seem to be, a marker capable of accurately identifying asthma with sufficient specificity is yet to be found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Older patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are particularly susceptible to exacerbations that may be associated with incorrect use of inhalers. Educational programs with inhaler technique review seem to be effective, but no studies have addressed their cost‐effectiveness in older adult patients. The objective was to perform a cost‐effectiveness analysis of education programs in older patients and estimate the cost benefit of applying such a program in Portugal. DESIGN: We developed a decision tree analysis from a healthcare perspective, according to intervention costs and the exacerbation rates and costs described in a previous meta‐analysis. A sensitivity analysis of worst and best case scenarios was performed to estimate thresholds for intervention affordable limits, as well as cost‐saving estimations and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for a Portuguese scenario. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We estimated cost‐effectiveness thresholds applicable in all settings and performed a sensitivity analysis of a theoretical intervention model in all patients including an inhaler technique review at an annual appointment with a doctor and a nurse. RESULTS: In the best case scenario, the intervention affordable budget could be up to almost 1800€ (US $1585.24) per patient per year. Mean intervention‐associated savings in Portugal would be 311.88€ (US $274.68) per patient per year, representing annual savings up to €131 million (US $150 million) for the whole health system, already including intervention costs. ICERs for Portugal vary between 93.73€ (US $82.55) and 437.43€ (US $385.25) per exacerbation avoided. CONCLUSION: A model of an intervention program with an inhaler technique review in older adult patients suggests that this intervention is cost‐effective and can generate significant savings. J Am Geriatr Soc 1–7, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of inhaler education programs on clinical outcomes and exacerbation rates in older adults with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Design: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Setting and Participants: Older adults with asthma or COPD, either in primary or secondary health care and pharmacy setting. Measurements: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Central databases according to the main eligibility criteria for inclusion: systematic reviews, meta‐analysis, clinical trials and quasi‐experimental studies; participants aged 65 and older; education on inhaler technique and reporting of disease control and exacerbation rates. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations scale for quality assessment and used a random‐effect model with Mantel–Haenszel adjustment to perform a meta‐analysis. Results: We included 8 studies (4 randomized, 4 quasi‐experimental) with a total of 1,812 participants. The most frequent type of intervention was physical demonstration of inhaler technique, training with placebo devices. Five studies showed significant reduction in exacerbation rates (pooled risk ratio=0.71, 95% confidence interval=0.59–0.86; p < .001), although effect on disease control and quality of life showed high discrepancy in the reported results, and all randomized studies revealed uncertainty in their risk of bias assessment. Conclusion: All interventions seemed to improve inhaler performance and clinically relevant outcomes, but a placebo device could be the most effective. There is evidence that interventions reduce exacerbation risk in older adults, although to an overall moderate degree. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:57–66, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]