MART在中重度哮喘中的实际应用:来自意大利WAMP对医疗保健专业人员和患者的调查结果。

IF 3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Pulmonary Therapy Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-04 DOI:10.1007/s41030-025-00310-5
Fulvio Braido, Matteo Bonini, Walter Castellani, Andrea Claudio Comel, Francesco Paolo Lombardo, Antonio Spanevello, Alessandro Vatrella, Marco Contoli
{"title":"MART在中重度哮喘中的实际应用:来自意大利WAMP对医疗保健专业人员和患者的调查结果。","authors":"Fulvio Braido, Matteo Bonini, Walter Castellani, Andrea Claudio Comel, Francesco Paolo Lombardo, Antonio Spanevello, Alessandro Vatrella, Marco Contoli","doi":"10.1007/s41030-025-00310-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Moderate-severe asthma affects a significant proportion of patients and poses challenges in symptom control and exacerbation prevention. The preferred track 1 endorsed by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendations offers a single-inhaler approach combining inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol for both maintenance and symptom relief (maintenance and reliever therapy; MART). However, MART's real-world adoption remains suboptimal and concerns regarding its correct implementation persist. \"What About MART Posology\" (WAMP) survey assessed the knowledge and clinical application of MART among Italian healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>WAMP was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted among 1000 Italian HCPs and 400 patients with moderate-severe asthma. HCPs answered questions regarding treatment preferences, adherence to GINA recommendations and MART implementation. Patients reported on their therapeutic regimens, inhaler use, and adherence behaviors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most HCPs demonstrated awareness of GINA recommendations. Pulmonologists (73.6%) and allergists (62.0%) reported favoring track 1, while general practitioners (GPs) showed greater variability (55.1%). Most of HCPs reported the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol, according to the MART approach, to manage moderate-severe asthma. GPs reported that approximately 45.5% of moderate-severe patients with asthma treated with ICS-formoterol inhaled therapy were also prescribed short-acting β2-agonists (SABA). Among patients, ICS-formoterol was the most reported regimen (59.7%), despite only 21.6% adhered to the MART approach correctly. Triple therapy was preferred for patients with recurrent exacerbations, yet its adoption was lower than expected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The WAMP survey suggests a strong awareness of GINA track 1 among Italian HCPs. MART was widely implemented, particularly by specialists; patient data supported these findings. Gaps in education on MART's dual function persist though. Targeted training for HCPs and improved patient education are essential to optimize asthma management and adherence to evidence-based strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":20919,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"475-489"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12373597/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-World Use of MART in Moderate-Severe Asthma: Results from the Italian WAMP Survey among Healthcare Professionals and Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Fulvio Braido, Matteo Bonini, Walter Castellani, Andrea Claudio Comel, Francesco Paolo Lombardo, Antonio Spanevello, Alessandro Vatrella, Marco Contoli\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41030-025-00310-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Moderate-severe asthma affects a significant proportion of patients and poses challenges in symptom control and exacerbation prevention. The preferred track 1 endorsed by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendations offers a single-inhaler approach combining inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol for both maintenance and symptom relief (maintenance and reliever therapy; MART). However, MART's real-world adoption remains suboptimal and concerns regarding its correct implementation persist. \\\"What About MART Posology\\\" (WAMP) survey assessed the knowledge and clinical application of MART among Italian healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>WAMP was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted among 1000 Italian HCPs and 400 patients with moderate-severe asthma. HCPs answered questions regarding treatment preferences, adherence to GINA recommendations and MART implementation. Patients reported on their therapeutic regimens, inhaler use, and adherence behaviors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most HCPs demonstrated awareness of GINA recommendations. Pulmonologists (73.6%) and allergists (62.0%) reported favoring track 1, while general practitioners (GPs) showed greater variability (55.1%). Most of HCPs reported the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol, according to the MART approach, to manage moderate-severe asthma. GPs reported that approximately 45.5% of moderate-severe patients with asthma treated with ICS-formoterol inhaled therapy were also prescribed short-acting β2-agonists (SABA). Among patients, ICS-formoterol was the most reported regimen (59.7%), despite only 21.6% adhered to the MART approach correctly. Triple therapy was preferred for patients with recurrent exacerbations, yet its adoption was lower than expected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The WAMP survey suggests a strong awareness of GINA track 1 among Italian HCPs. MART was widely implemented, particularly by specialists; patient data supported these findings. Gaps in education on MART's dual function persist though. Targeted training for HCPs and improved patient education are essential to optimize asthma management and adherence to evidence-based strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"475-489\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12373597/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-025-00310-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-025-00310-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:中重度哮喘影响了相当大比例的患者,对症状控制和恶化预防提出了挑战。全球哮喘倡议(GINA)推荐的首选轨道1提供了一种单吸入器方法,将吸入皮质类固醇和福莫特罗联合用于维持和症状缓解(维持和缓解治疗;集市)。然而,MART在现实世界的采用仍然不是最优的,并且对其正确实现的关注仍然存在。“关于MART Posology”(WAMP)调查评估了意大利医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)和患者中MART的知识和临床应用。方法:WAMP是一项基于网络的横断面调查,在1000名意大利HCPs和400名中重度哮喘患者中进行。医护人员回答了有关治疗偏好、遵守GINA建议和MART实施的问题。患者报告了他们的治疗方案、吸入器的使用和依从性行为。结果:大多数HCPs对GINA建议有所了解。肺科医生(73.6%)和过敏症专家(62.0%)报告倾向于1路,而全科医生(gp)表现出更大的变异性(55.1%)。根据MART方法,大多数HCPs报告使用吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)-福莫特罗来管理中重度哮喘。全科医生报告说,大约45.5%的中重度哮喘患者接受了ics -福莫特罗吸入治疗,同时也开了短效β2激动剂(SABA)。在患者中,ics -福莫特罗是报告最多的方案(59.7%),尽管只有21.6%的患者正确地坚持了MART方法。三联疗法是复发性加重患者的首选,但其采用率低于预期。结论:WAMP调查表明,意大利HCPs对GINA 1轨道有很强的认识。MART得到广泛实施,特别是由专家实施;患者数据支持这些发现。然而,在MART双重功能方面的教育差距仍然存在。对医护人员进行有针对性的培训和改进患者教育对于优化哮喘管理和坚持循证策略至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Real-World Use of MART in Moderate-Severe Asthma: Results from the Italian WAMP Survey among Healthcare Professionals and Patients.

Real-World Use of MART in Moderate-Severe Asthma: Results from the Italian WAMP Survey among Healthcare Professionals and Patients.

Real-World Use of MART in Moderate-Severe Asthma: Results from the Italian WAMP Survey among Healthcare Professionals and Patients.

Real-World Use of MART in Moderate-Severe Asthma: Results from the Italian WAMP Survey among Healthcare Professionals and Patients.

Introduction: Moderate-severe asthma affects a significant proportion of patients and poses challenges in symptom control and exacerbation prevention. The preferred track 1 endorsed by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendations offers a single-inhaler approach combining inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol for both maintenance and symptom relief (maintenance and reliever therapy; MART). However, MART's real-world adoption remains suboptimal and concerns regarding its correct implementation persist. "What About MART Posology" (WAMP) survey assessed the knowledge and clinical application of MART among Italian healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients.

Methods: WAMP was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted among 1000 Italian HCPs and 400 patients with moderate-severe asthma. HCPs answered questions regarding treatment preferences, adherence to GINA recommendations and MART implementation. Patients reported on their therapeutic regimens, inhaler use, and adherence behaviors.

Results: Most HCPs demonstrated awareness of GINA recommendations. Pulmonologists (73.6%) and allergists (62.0%) reported favoring track 1, while general practitioners (GPs) showed greater variability (55.1%). Most of HCPs reported the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol, according to the MART approach, to manage moderate-severe asthma. GPs reported that approximately 45.5% of moderate-severe patients with asthma treated with ICS-formoterol inhaled therapy were also prescribed short-acting β2-agonists (SABA). Among patients, ICS-formoterol was the most reported regimen (59.7%), despite only 21.6% adhered to the MART approach correctly. Triple therapy was preferred for patients with recurrent exacerbations, yet its adoption was lower than expected.

Conclusions: The WAMP survey suggests a strong awareness of GINA track 1 among Italian HCPs. MART was widely implemented, particularly by specialists; patient data supported these findings. Gaps in education on MART's dual function persist though. Targeted training for HCPs and improved patient education are essential to optimize asthma management and adherence to evidence-based strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pulmonary Therapy
Pulmonary Therapy Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
24
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope Pulmonary Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from pre-clinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of pulmonary therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to: asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; pulmonary hypertension; cystic fibrosis; lung cancer; respiratory tract disorders; allergic rhinitis and other respiratory allergies; influenza, pneumococcal infection, respiratory syncytial virus and other respiratory infections; and inhalers and other device therapies. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Pulmonary Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of pulmonary therapies. Open Access All articles published by Pulmonary Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Pulmonary Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €4500/ $5100/ £3650. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Pulmonary Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信