Recommendations from a Canadian Delphi consensus study on best practice for optimal referral and appropriate management of severe asthma

In Canada there is significant variation in how patients with SA are diagnosed and cared for. There are multiple patient pathways reflecting local expertise and service and system structures. In addition, there are a limited number of specialist SA centers across Canada [13] and capacity within these centers is therefore finite. The geographical distribution of specialist centers may mean that some patients have to travel considerable distance for specialist severe asthma care. Most patients report that they receive their asthma care from a primary care physician and 53% indicated that long wait times to see specialist prevents them from receiving asthma care, support, and treatment required [14].

Where SA is suspected, the primary care provider may refer the patient to an allergist or respirologist within the local secondary care service. In some situations, the specialist may need to refer the patient on to a severe asthma center.

The first step in identification of SA is identifying those individuals with uncontrolled asthma. Interrogation of family physician prescribing data or pharmacy dispensing data may provide insight into OCS and SABA use and identify those patients who may have poor adherence. Uncontrolled patients should be reviewed by their family physician and appropriate optimization and patient education provided. If the patient remains uncontrolled despite good adherence to maximal inhaled therapy (through correction of inhaler technique, management of comorbidities etc.), then respondents agree strongly that a referral to an asthma specialist should be made (Statements 1- 5). Pharmacists may be able to support in identifying those individuals with either a pattern of overuse of SABA or OCS, or who do not collect renewals of their maintenance medications at the expected frequency (suggesting poor adherence).

It is interesting that the response to statement 4, while still above the consensus agreement threshold, scored significantly lower than statements 1, 2, 3 and 5. This could be due to the wording of the statement, which uses the term ‘ICS therapy’ rather than the ‘high dose ICS/LABA’ used in other statements, and should have been revised for more clarity. Another reason may be that the overuse of SABA inhalers is common in Canada despite the clear relationship between SABA overuse and worsening asthma control, increased risk of exacerbations, and mortality [5]. To address this pattern of behavior, a strong message is needed within the asthma community that overuse of SABA therapy should be challenged, and patients assessed and referred promptly as required.

There was a clear lack of agreement regarding the use of spirometry in SA (Statement 7; 68%). This raises some important questions: is this belief due to a disagreement with the use of spirometry or is it due to the reality of limited access to spirometry services in some areas? While spirometry is the gold standard for asthma diagnosis, there are situations where it may be inconclusive, and with the diagnosis of SA being based on medication use and control of symptoms, some may feel that spirometry is not required for a referral. Sub-analysis of this statement by role shows the lowest levels of agreement were amongst respirologists and family physicians (57% and 60%, respectively), while the highest were amongst nurses and CREs (86% and 76%, respectively). It is reasonable to assume that in areas with limited access to spirometry, HCPs are not prepared to wait, particularly when patients may require access to biologic therapies. In practical terms, where spirometry is not available in a timely manner, a lack of asthma control which persists after treatment and adherence optimization should prompt a referral.

There was clear agreement that the patient should be reviewed (Statement 8; 91%) and provided with appropriate educational support (Statement 9; 92%) prior to any referral. This is a key step that would help poorly controlled patients gain control of their asthma and prevent unnecessary referrals, thereby helping to minimize capacity needs in specialist clinics.

Statements 11–13 were intended to gauge responder opinion on the optimum time for patient to be seen by a specialist after referral. Statement 13 was supported by many respondents (67% agreement) but did not achieve consensus agreement, on further analysis there was a clear variation in response by region with Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador having the highest agreement levels of agreement (88–100%), and Quebec and British Columbia, the lowest levels (48–50%). Further work is needed to understand these differences in opinion.

Overall, the response to these data suggests that 4–8 weeks is optimal, and that 12 weeks is less acceptable. This is in line with the findings of a recent consensus in the UK and is not considered a failure to achieve consensus [15].

Respondents strongly agreed that receiving specialists should notify the referrer that the referral has been received and an indication of when the patient can be seen (assuming the referral is accepted). This is already specified in the guidelines of most provincial medical regulatory authorities [16,17,18] and should be standard practice, although anecdotal experience of the authors suggests that this is variable in practice. The circle of care for the patient is dependent on clear communication between HCPs, but unfortunately there are gaps. In 2019, 14.5% of Canadians aged ≥ 12 years did not have access to a family physician, and this was highest in Quebec (21.5%), Saskatchewan (17.2%), and British Columbia (17.7%) [19]. As a consequence, these patients may rely on episodes of care from a hospital, emergency room, or walk in clinic, a model of care that can be described as fractured at best.

All statements reported in Table 4 achieved consensus agreement with 3/5 achieving over 95% agreement amongst responders.

SA often requires treatment with a biologic medication. Asthma (and by extension SA) is increasingly understood to be an umbrella term for several diseases with distinct inflammatory mechanisms (endotypes) and variable clinical presentations (phenotypes). Characterization of patient endotype allows targeted use of biologic therapies. There are a range of biologic treatments approved for use, and these differ in their molecular targets and the subsequent impact on inflammatory pathways [20]. Access to a range of biologic therapies is therefore essential to managing SA, but there is considerable variation across provinces [9].

Respondents strongly agreed that future Canadian guidelines should provide pragmatic and practical guidance regarding the initiation and choice of biologic therapies (Statement 19, 97%). It is possible that such guidelines could support a consistent offering of advanced therapies across provinces and territories, a ‘minimum offer’ that would provide equity of access for all patients.

There was strong agreement that once approved for a biologic therapy, treatment should be initiated within two to four weeks (90% and 91%, respectively).

All statements reported in Table 5 achieved very high consensus agreement. The overarching theme of these results is that a range of services should be in place and available in a timely manner to provide the infrastructure to deliver optimal care for patients with SA.

Respondents agreed that access to diagnostic tools within 4 weeks is fundamental to improving SA outcomes in Canada (Statement 25, 97%), suggesting that HCPs recognize the value of spirometry, lung function tests etc., despite variations in access. This also suggests that the lack of consensus for statement 7 is more likely related to access to services rather than a lack of belief in the value of these diagnostic methods.

Virtual care has rapidly been adopted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The term covers a range of communication methods including video calls, telephone, email, and even remote monitoring of personal diagnostic devices such as blood glucose monitors. Canada is a large and relatively sparsely populated country, and access to healthcare is a geographical challenge for some. In this situation, virtual methods are extremely valuable, but not all people prefer (or have access to) virtual care. In addition to this, some healthcare activities require in-person attendance (e.g., for examination or diagnostic procedures), so virtual care methods should be offered but appropriate to the individual patient.

Statement 26 had a slightly lower agreement level than statements 22–25 (90%), and this may be due to the wording of the statement, and whilst many agree that access to educators is important in SA care, they may not all agree that access within 2 weeks is ‘fundamental’. The authors suggest that referrals for suspected SA should be made even if access to educators is limited, as there is still opportunity for patient education to be delivered while the referral is in progress.

Almost all respondents (regardless of role) agreed that allied healthcare professionals are critical to the ongoing management of severe asthma patients.

All (100%) of respondents recognized the need for patients to be educated about their asthma. In Canada, certified respiratory educators (and certified asthma educators) are in place to deliver consistent and high-quality education to patients and HCPs. Certified respiratory educators (CRE) represent a range of healthcare roles, including pharmacists, nurses, occupational therapists, and respiratory therapists, and there are currently around 1,500 CREs and 375 CAEs in Canada [21]. In 2021, Asthma Canada report that 19% of patients had difficulty in accessing an educator most of the time and a further 25% had difficulty some of the time. This suggests a need for greater provision of education from dedicated practitioners, indeed, this was a key policy recommendation by Asthma Canada in 2019 [14, 22].

Respondents also strongly agreed that pharmacy services can play an important role and helping to identify uncontrolled asthma patients for appropriate follow up and referral.

There is a lack of national publicly available asthma specific outcomes data for Canada. Respondents strongly agreed that there is a need to establish a national data collection (S31, 97%), which can be used to develop benchmarks (S32-35, 95–99%) and performance measures (S36, 95%) for asthma care. Publication of patient-centered measures (S37, 93%) would allow patients to make more informed decisions about their healthcare.

Patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are growing in importance and are often defined as secondary endpoints in Phase 3 clinical studies [23]. PROMs can be collected using an agreed, validated tool (e.g., Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and the Asthma Symptoms Diary (ASD)), and this this approach should be embedded in routine clinical practice.

Guidelines should be published as a single authoritative source (S38, 99%) to provide a consistent and evidence-based approach for clinical practice. Such guidelines do require a concerted effort to develop and can quickly become obsolete if not updated regularly. In Canada, a survey of 234 HCPs involved in asthma care found that 77% reported sub-optimal knowledge of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for adult asthma care, compared with 64% for the CTS guidelines (which were last updated in 2017, and therefore may be obsolete regarding newer treatments) [24]. A single source could be beneficial in providing a consistency of approach and increasing familiarity and understanding amongst HCPs.

Respondents clearly agreed that patients should expect to receive quality care for their severe asthma (S39; 93%, S42; 99%). To enable this, the normalization of SABA and OCS overuse amongst both patients and HCPs should be challenged (S40, 99%). The Asthma Canada Severe Asthma Patient Charter [25] sets out the key principles of patient expectations, patients should be aware of the expectations of care in severe asthma to drive improvement.

It is interesting to note that S39 achieved a slightly lower level of agreement (93%) than the other statements in this topic, this could be due to the use of the word ‘demand’ and the context that responses were from HCPs, not all of which may wish patients to make further demands. Future work could involve a patient specific survey to gauge level of agreement with the principles described here.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif