ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Comparing 6-Year Carbon Footprint Between GINA Track 1 and 2 Asthma Management for Adults: A Real-World Primary Care Report from Singapore to Advocate for Policy Change in Inhaler Procurement.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobal Initiative for Asthma (GINA) has recommended inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-Formoterol as Track-1 treatment for patients. Using ICS and SABA (Short-Acting Beta-Agonist) as a reliever is an alternative Track-2 option. Both modalities are tied to type of inhaler use, dry powder inhalers (DPI) and propellent-containing metered-dose inhalers (pMDI). Compared to propellent-free DPI, pMDI have much higher carbon footprint (CF) detrimental to the environment. Leveraging on dispensed inhaler data from the electronic medical records of patients managed in primary care, the study aimed to quantify their CF using Budesonide-Formoterol (BUD-FOR) DPI alone, compared to those who were treated with BUD-FOR DPI + pMDI as a reliever.
methodsElectronic medical records from 8 public primary care clinics were analysed, covering adult asthma patients (aged ≥21) between 2018 and 2023. Data on inhaler dispensing, asthma control test (ACT) scores and rescue therapy (RT) needs were assessed. CF was computed based on inhaler canisters dispensed. Associations between treatment modality, asthma control, RT and CF were analysed using Generalized Estimating Equations.
resultsA total of 5634 patients using BUD-FOR DPI were included. Over the study period, Track-1 usage increased substantially from 466 to 2317 patients, while Track-2 rose modestly from 628 to 758. In 2023, 78.5% of patients achieved good asthma control compared to 68.7% in Track-2. The total CF per patient was substantially lower in Track-1 compared to Track-2 (3.3 vs 62.4 kgCO₂e). Patients in Track-1 had a significantly lower CF by 60 kgCO₂e (
conclusionPatients managed under Track-1 treatment approach demonstrated significantly better asthma outcomes and lower CF. These findings highlight potential of Track-1 treatment as the preferred strategy, enabling better clinical outcomes and reduced environmental impact.
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.