A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.
“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,”, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in . “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”
The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.
For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.
They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.
Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.
This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; .