4.6 Article

Understanding reliever overuse in patients purchasing over-the-counter short-acting beta2 agonists: an Australian community pharmacy-based survey

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-028995

关键词

asthma; respiratory medicine (see thoracic medicine); chronic airways disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Overuse of asthma relievers is associated with significant adverse consequences. This study aimed to better understand the population purchasing and using short-acting beta agonists (SABA) over the counter (OTC); and compare the demographic, clinical and behavioural characteristics of those who overuse SABA with those who do not. Design and setting Real-world cross-sectional observational study in community pharmacy. Participants Of 412 participants >= 16 years requesting SABA OTC, 289 were SABA overusers (used SABA more than twice per week in the past 4 weeks). Main outcome measure Reliever use, Global Initiative for Asthma-defined control, healthcare utilisation, patterns of preventer use. Results 70.1% of participants were classified as SABA overusers, that is, reporting SABA use more than twice a week within the last 4 weeks, 73.6% reported not using a preventer daily and only 81.6% reported a doctor diagnosis of asthma. SABA overusers were more likely to have moderate-severe nasal symptoms (80.8% vs 63.0%, p<0.001) and a diagnosis of depression (11.1% vs 5.7%, p<0.001), when compared with SABA non-overusers. A higher proportion of SABA overusers had uncontrolled asthma (59.0% vs 15.4%, p<0.001), were more likely to use oral corticosteroids to manage worsening asthma symptoms (26.2% vs 13.5%, p<0.01) and visit the doctor for their asthma in the past 12 months (74.5% vs 62.5%, p<0.01), when compared to SABA non-overusers. Conclusions This study uncovers a hidden population of people who can only be identified in pharmacy with suboptimal asthma, coexisting rhinitis, poor preventer adherence and, in some cases, no asthma diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据