ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2024
Mixed-methods evaluation of an enhanced asthma biologics clinical pathway in the West Midlands UK.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biologic treatments can alleviate severe asthma symptoms and reduce health service use. However, service capacity limits and low referral rates from primary care indicate unmet patient need. We report a mixed-methods evaluation of an enhanced severe asthma pathway implemented in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, UK which aimed to optimise primary care referrals through training/education, and increased capacity in specialist clinics. Quantitative analysis assessed patient wait times between pathway stages, prescribing changes, exacerbations, hospital admissions and asthma control. Interviews with 12 stakeholders evaluated perceptions of the enhanced pathway across settings. In 12 months, 564 patients from 28 general practices were reviewed for biologics eligibility, of whom 125 (22.2%) were referred for specialist assessment. Wait times were significantly lower under the enhanced pathway when compared against historic patients following the standard pathway, and reduced overall from a mean of 76.4 to 26.7 weeks between referral and biologics initiation (p < 0.001). Patients commencing biologics (n = 46) showed significantly reduced reliever inhaler prescribing rates (p = 0.037), 60% lower oral steroid use (p < 0.001), significantly reduced exacerbation rates (p < 0.001) and fewer hospital admissions (p < 0.001) compared with the 12 months pre-treatment. Mean asthma control scores reduced from 3.13 pre-initiation to 1.89 post-initiation (p < 0.001) - a clinically significant improvement. Interviewees viewed the enhanced pathway positively, although ongoing issues related to difficulties engaging primary care amid concerns around increased workloads and pathway capacity. The large number of referrals generated from a comparatively small number of general practices confirms substantial unmet need that an enhanced severe asthma pathway could help address if implemented routinely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.