Search

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a descriptive study to evaluate any changes in practice behaviour regarding the provision of hydrocortisone and lignocaine (H&L) injections among doctors and how an H&L injection is priced following a disciplinary proceeding decision. A doctor had been fined SGD 100,000 for failing to obtain informed consent before an H&L injection. METHODS: We performed a survey shortly after the disciplinary decision to ascertain: (a) the category of the respondent; (b) whether the respondent provided H&L injections and how much he charged before the decision; and (c) after the decision. All members of the Singapore Medical Association and College of Family Physicians Singapore are doctors and were invited to participate. RESULTS: 1,927 doctors responded to the survey. Prior to the decision, 804 doctors did not perform H&L injections; this increased by 20.4% to 968 after the decision. The number of doctors who gave H&L injections decreased by 164 (14.6%), from the previous 1,123. Pre-decision, doctors who determined their own price for H&L injections charged a median pricing ≤ SGD 100. Post-decision, the median charge rose to > SGD 100 to SGD 200. At higher price bands, the number of doctors who charged > SGD 1,000 increased eight-fold, from eight to 65. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated how a disciplinary decision can affect practice behaviour, and specifically how doctors may choose to not offer a service, an example of defensive medicine through avoidance behaviour. It also showed how prices for a service can rise following such a decision, which demonstrates the concept of negative general deterrence in sentencing.

Background Clinicians are increasingly recognizing severe asthma patients in whom biologics and other add-on therapies lead to dramatic improvement. Currently, there is no agreed-upon super-responder (SR) definition. Objective To survey severe asthma experts using a modified Delphi process, to develop an international consensus-based definition of a severe asthma SR. Methods The Delphi panel was composed of 81 participants (94% specialist pulmonologists or allergists) from 24 countries and consisted of three iterative online voting rounds. Consensus on individual items, whether acceptance or rejection, required at least 70% agreement by panel members. Results Consensus was achieved that the SR definition should be based on improvement across three or more domains assessed over 12 months. Major SR criteria included exacerbation elimination, a large improvement in asthma control (two or more times the minimal clinically important difference), and cessation of maintenance of oral steroids (or weaning to adrenal insufficiency). Minor SR criteria were composed of a 75% exacerbation reduction, having well-controlled asthma, and 500 mL or greater improvement in FEV1. The SR definition requires improvement in at least two major criteria. In the future, the SR definition should be expanded to incorporate quality of life measures, although current tools can be difficult to implement in a clinical setting and further research is needed. Conclusions This international consensus-based definition of severe asthma SRs is an important prerequisite for better understanding SR prevalence, predictive factors, and the mechanisms involved. Further research is needed to understand the patient's perspective and to measure quality of life more precisely in SRs.

To provide a summary of the management of asthma in the current COVID-19 pandemic by examining and comparing the recommendations from various professional bodies.Websites of known respiratory professional bodies were searched for COVID-19 guidance related to asthma. Subject matter experts were also consulted for useful resources. Resources that were targeted at healthcare professionals were included, while those targeting patients and the general public were excluded.There is currently little data to suggest that asthma protects from or increases the risk of COVID-19, nor is there any data to support strong recommendations for or against specific asthma treatments. Physicians should continue to manage asthma according to existing accepted asthma guidelines and recommendations. All prescribed medications, especially inhaled corticosteroids, should be continued, and, where indicated, oral corticosteroids and biologic therapies should still be used. Nebulizers and spirometry should be avoided where possible to reduce the risk of viral transmission. A detailed history should be taken to differentiate asthma exacerbations from COVID-19.Understanding similarities and differences among the recommendations of the various professional bodies will aid in medical decision-making in managing asthma in the COVID-19 pandemic. Health professionals should also consider the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients and the unique characteristics of their local healthcare systems.

We examined the physician perspectives on asthma management in Asia.An online/face-to-face, questionnaire-based survey of respiratory specialists and primary care physicians from eight Asian countries/region was carried out. The survey explored asthma control, inhaler selection, technique and use; physician-patient communications and asthma education. Inclusion criteria were50% of practice time spent on direct patient care; and treated30 patients with asthma per month, of which60% were aged12 years.REALISE Asia (Phase 2) involved 375 physicians with average 15.9(±6.8) years of clinical experience. 89.1% of physicians reporting use of guidelines estimated that 53.2% of their patients have well-controlled (GINA-defined) asthma. Top consideration for inhaler choice was asthma severity (82.4%) and lowest, socio-economic status (32.5%). Then 54.7% of physicians checked their patients' inhaler techniques during consultations but 28.2(±19.1)% of patients were using their inhalers incorrectly; 21.1-57.9% of physicians could spot improper inhaler techniques in video demonstrations. And 79.6% of physicians believed combination inhalers could increase adherence because of convenience (53.7%), efficacy (52.7%) and usability (18.9%). Initial and follow-up consultations took 16.8(±8.4) and 9.2(±5.3) minutes, respectively. Most (85.1%) physicians used verbal conversations and least (24.5%), video demonstrations of inhaler use; 56.8% agreed that patient attitudes influenced their treatment approach.Physicians and patients have different views of 'well-controlled' asthma. Although physicians informed patients about asthma and inhaler usage, they overestimated actual usage and patients' knowledge was sub-optimal. Physician-patient interactions can be augmented with understanding of patient attitudes, visual aids and ancillary support to perform physical demonstrations to improve treatment outcomes.

Chronic non-specific respiratory symptoms are difficult to manage. This trial aimed to evaluate the association between baseline fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and the response to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms.In this double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled undiagnosed patients, aged 18-80 years, with cough, wheeze, or dyspnoea and less than 20% bronchodilator reversibility across 26 primary care centres and hospitals in the UK and Singapore. Patients were assessed for 2 weeks before being randomly assigned (1:1) to 4 weeks of treatment with extrafine inhaled corticosteroids (QVAR 80 μg, two puffs twice per day, equivalent to 800 μg per day beclomethasone dipropionate) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by baseline FeNO measurement: normal (≤25 parts per billion [ppb]), intermediate (25 tp40 ppb), and high (≥40 ppb). The primary endpoint was change in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ7) mean score. We used generalised linear modelling to assess FeNO as a predictor of response, estimating an interaction effect between FeNO and treatment on change in ACQ7. We did our primary and secondary analyses in the per-protocol set, which excluded patients with non-completion of the primary endpoint, non-compliance to treatment (ascertained by patient report), and study visits made outside the predefined visit windows. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02294279.Between Feb 4, 2015, and July 12, 2016, we randomly assigned 294 patients to extrafine inhaled corticosteroid treatment (n=148) or placebo (n=146). Following exclusions due to protocol violations, we analysed 214 patients (114 extrafine inhaled corticosteroids and 100 placebo). We observed a significant interaction between baseline FeNO and treatment group for every 10 ppb increase in baseline FeNO, with the change in ACQ7 greater in the extrafine inhaled corticosteroids group than in the placebo group (difference between groups 0·071, 95% CI 0·002 to 0·139; p=0·044). The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] patients in the treatment group vs 13 [9%] in the placebo group), infections and infestations (25 [17%] vs 21 [14%]), and respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders (13 [9%] vs 17 [12%]).FeNO measurement is an easy and non-invasive tool to use in clinical practice in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms to predict response to inhaled corticosteroids. Further research is needed to examine its role in patients with evidence of other airway diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Sponsored by OPRI with partial funding by Circassia and study drugs provided by TEVA.

Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) can predict treatment response in asthma, but little is known of its utility in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms (NSRS). Aims and objectives: To evaluate the association between baseline FeNO and response to treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with NSRS. Methods: This was a multi-centre randomised, placebo-controlled trial, carried out in UK and Singapore. It consisted of a 2-week assessment period to establish baseline measurements and a 4-week treatment period with either extrafine ICS (200 µ beclomethasone bid) or placebo. NIOX VERO (Circassia) was used to measure baseline FeNO. The primary endpoint was change in ACQ7 score (Asthma Control Questionnaire, 7 questions). Analysis was carried out in a Main Analysis Set (MAS), which contained all randomised patients who complied with their study treatment and completed follow-up within 6 weeks of randomisation, and in a Per Protocol (PP) set, which included all patients in the MAS but excluded protocol violations. Results: In the PP set (n=214), we found that higher baseline FeNO was associated with a greater treatment effect. Improvement of ACQ7 was 0.071 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.002-0.139) greater in patients receiving extrafine ICS compared to patients receiving placebo, for every 10 ppb increase in baseline FeNO. The equivalent effect was not significant in the MAS set (n=259) (0.049; 95% CI, -0.012-0.110). Conclusions: FeNO measurement is a simple, near patient, quantitative and non-invasive diagnostic tool that could support treatment decisions for patients with NSRS. Further research is needed to establish a treatment paradigm.

REALISE Asia—an online questionnaire-based study of Asian asthma patients—identified five patient clusters defined in terms of their control status and attitude towards their asthma (categorised as: ‘Well-adjusted and at least partly controlled’; ‘In denial about symptoms’; ‘Tolerating with poor control’; ‘Adrift and poorly controlled’; ‘Worried with multiple symptoms’). We developed consensus recommendations for tailoring management of these attitudinal–control clusters. An expert panel undertook a three-round electronic Delphi (e-Delphi): Round 1: panellists received descriptions of the attitudinal–control clusters and provided free text recommendations for their assessment and management. Round 2: panellists prioritised Round 1 recommendations and met (or joined a teleconference) to consolidate the recommendations. Round 3: panellists voted and prioritised the remaining recommendations. Consensus was defined as Round 3 recommendations endorsed by >50% of panellists. Highest priority recommendations were those receiving the highest score. The multidisciplinary panellists (9 clinicians, 1 pharmacist and 1 health social scientist; 7 from Asia) identified consensus recommendations for all clusters. Recommended pharmacological (e.g., step-up/down; self-management; simplified regimen) and non-pharmacological approaches (e.g., trigger management, education, social support; inhaler technique) varied substantially according to each cluster’s attitude to asthma and associated psychosocial drivers of behaviour. The attitudinal–control clusters defined by REALISE Asia resonated with the international panel. Consensus was reached on appropriate tailored management approaches for all clusters. Summarised and incorporated into a structured management pathway, these recommendations could facilitate personalised care. Generalisability of these patient clusters should be assessed in other socio-economic, cultural and literacy groups and nationalities in Asia.

Purpose Asthma is a global health problem, and asthma prevalence in Asia is increasing. The REcognise Asthma and LInk to Symptoms and Experience Asia study assessed patients’ perception of asthma control and attitudes toward treatment in an accessible, real-life adult Asian population. Patients and methods An online survey of 2,467 patients with asthma from eight Asian countries/regions, aged 18–50 years, showed greater than or equal to two prescriptions in previous 2 years and access to social media. Patients were asked about their asthma symptoms, exacerbations and treatment type, views and perceptions of asthma control, attitudes toward asthma management, and sources of asthma information. Results Patients had a mean age of 34.2 (±7.4) years and were diagnosed with asthma for 12.5 (±9.7) years. Half had the Global Initiative for Asthma-defined uncontrolled asthma. During the previous year, 38% of patients visited the emergency department, 33% were hospitalized, and 73% had greater than or equal to one course of oral corticosteroids. About 90% of patients felt that their asthma was under control, 82% considered their condition as not serious, and 59% were concerned about their condition. In all, 66% of patients viewed asthma control as managing attacks and 24% saw it as an absence of or minimal symptoms. About 14% of patients who correctly identified their controller inhalers had controlled asthma compared to 6% who could not. Conclusion Patients consistently overestimated their level of asthma control contrary to what their symptoms suggest. They perceived control as management of exacerbations, reflective of a crisis-oriented mind-set. Interventions can leverage on patients’ trust in health care providers and desire for self-management via a new language to generate a paradigm shift toward symptom control and preventive care., Video abstract

Introduction: Singapore's rapidly ageing population and chronic disease burden at public hospital specialist clinics herald a silver tsunami. In Singapore, “right siting” aims to manage stable chronic disease in primary care at a lower cost. To improve the quality of rheumatology care, we created shared care between rheumatologist and family physician to reduce hospital visits.Methods: Clinical practice improvement methodology was used to structure shared care of stable patients between hospital rheumatologists and eleven community family physicians; one ran a hospital clinic. A case manager coordinated the workflow.Results: About 220 patients entered shared care over 29 months. Patients without hospital subsidies (private patients) and private family physicians independently predicted successful shared care, defined as one cycle of alternating care.Discussion: Our shared care model incorporated a case manager, systematic workflows, patient selection criteria, willing family physician partners and rheumatologists in the absence of organizational integration. Health care affordability impacts successful shared care. Government subsidy hindered right siting to private primary care.Conclusions: Financing systems in Singapore, at health policy level, must allow transfer of hospital subsidies to primary care, both private and public, to make it more affordable than hospital care. Structural integration will create a seamless continuum between hospital and primary care.