User login
Asthma is not well controlled in about half of patients with the disease in the UK and Europe, increasing the risk of hospital admission and severe illness, and increasing healthcare costs.
Now, the authors of a new study have reported that poorly controlled asthma is also associated with a higher carbon footprint, eight times higher than that of well-controlled asthma and equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by more than 124,000 homes each year in the UK.
The study was published in the journal Thorax and is part of the Healthcare-Based Environmental Cost of Treatment (CARBON) programme, which aims to provide a broader understanding of the carbon footprint associated with respiratory care.
John Bell, BMBCh, medical director of BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, and co-author of the study, said that he was surprised by the scale to which poorly controlled asthma contributed to the overall carbon footprint of asthma care. “This suggests that suboptimal asthma care is not just a public health issue, but also one which has environmental consequences,” he said.
Improving the care of asthma patients could help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors suggested.
SABA – Largest Contributor to Asthma-Related Greenhouse Gases
Healthcare is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the NHS set an ambitious target of reducing its carbon footprint by 80% over the next 15 years, with the aim of reaching net zero by 2045.
To estimate the environmental footprint of asthma care in the UK, the researchers retrospectively analyzed anonymized data of 236,506 people with asthma submitted to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2008 and 2019.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), were then estimated for asthma-related medication use, healthcare resource utilization, and severe exacerbations.
Well-controlled asthma was considered as having no episodes of severe worsening symptoms and fewer than three prescriptions of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) reliever inhalers in a year. Poorly controlled asthma included three or more SABA canister prescriptions or one or more episodes of severe worsening symptoms in a year.
Almost one in two patients with asthma (47.3%) were categorized as being poorly controlled.
The researchers estimated the overall carbon footprint attributed to asthma care when scaled to the entire UK asthma population was 750,540 tonnes CO2e/year, with poorly controlled asthma contributing to excess GHG emissions of 303,874 tonnes CO2e/year.
“Poorly controlled asthma generated three-fold higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita compared with well-controlled asthma, when taking into account GHG emissions related to all aspects of asthma care, including routine prescribing and management,” Dr. Bell explained. It also generated eight-fold higher excess per capita carbon footprint compared to well-controlled asthma.
SABA relievers represented the largest contributors to per capita asthma-related GHG emissions, accounting for more than 60% of overall GHG emissions and more than 90% of excess GHG emissions. The remainder was mostly due to healthcare resource utilization, such as GP and hospital visits, required to treat severe worsening symptoms.
The researchers acknowledged various limitations to their findings, including that the study results were largely descriptive in nature. And factors other than the level of asthma symptom control, such as prescribing patterns, may also have contributed to high SABA use.
Couple Optimized Patient Outcomes With Environmental Targets
With inappropriate SABA use having emerged as the single largest contributor to asthma care-related GHG emissions, improving this care could achieve substantial carbon emissions savings and help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors explained.
This improvement could include the adoption of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment strategies that, since 2019, no longer recommends that SABAs are used alone as the preferred reliever for acute asthma symptoms, the authors wrote.
However, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) asthma guidelines still recommend SABA alone as a reliever therapy.
On the other hand, the Primary Care Respiratory Society (PCRS) highlights on its website that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had approved the use of a dual (inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol) combination treatment to be used as a reliever therapy for people aged 12 and over.
“In the UK, this new therapy option does not yet sit within an approved national guideline as NICE last updated its treatment pathway in 2020. We await a new national asthma guideline but do not anticipate this new joint approach between NICE, BTS [British Thoracic Society], and SIGN [Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network] to publish until 2024,” the society wrote.
Dr. Bell explained that the carbon footprint of asthma care increased with higher socio-economic deprivation. “Thus, targeting suboptimal care to areas of higher deprivation could help improve patient outcomes and address health inequities, with the additional benefit of reducing the overall carbon footprint of asthma care,” he said.
This coupling of optimized patient outcomes with environmental targets to decrease GHG emissions could be extended to other chronic progressive diseases, particularly those associated with multi-morbidities, the authors wrote.
Dr. Andy Whittamore, MBBS, clinical lead at Asthma + Lung UK, who was not involved in the research, said: “This study highlights that high levels of uncontrolled asthma not only put thousands of people at risk of life-threatening asthma attacks, but also have a detrimental effect on the environment. It’s important to point out that people shouldn’t stop taking their inhalers because they are worried about the environment. The best thing for the environment is to keep your asthma under control,” he emphasized.
Please refer to the study for full study author disclosures.Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape UK.
Asthma is not well controlled in about half of patients with the disease in the UK and Europe, increasing the risk of hospital admission and severe illness, and increasing healthcare costs.
Now, the authors of a new study have reported that poorly controlled asthma is also associated with a higher carbon footprint, eight times higher than that of well-controlled asthma and equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by more than 124,000 homes each year in the UK.
The study was published in the journal Thorax and is part of the Healthcare-Based Environmental Cost of Treatment (CARBON) programme, which aims to provide a broader understanding of the carbon footprint associated with respiratory care.
John Bell, BMBCh, medical director of BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, and co-author of the study, said that he was surprised by the scale to which poorly controlled asthma contributed to the overall carbon footprint of asthma care. “This suggests that suboptimal asthma care is not just a public health issue, but also one which has environmental consequences,” he said.
Improving the care of asthma patients could help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors suggested.
SABA – Largest Contributor to Asthma-Related Greenhouse Gases
Healthcare is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the NHS set an ambitious target of reducing its carbon footprint by 80% over the next 15 years, with the aim of reaching net zero by 2045.
To estimate the environmental footprint of asthma care in the UK, the researchers retrospectively analyzed anonymized data of 236,506 people with asthma submitted to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2008 and 2019.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), were then estimated for asthma-related medication use, healthcare resource utilization, and severe exacerbations.
Well-controlled asthma was considered as having no episodes of severe worsening symptoms and fewer than three prescriptions of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) reliever inhalers in a year. Poorly controlled asthma included three or more SABA canister prescriptions or one or more episodes of severe worsening symptoms in a year.
Almost one in two patients with asthma (47.3%) were categorized as being poorly controlled.
The researchers estimated the overall carbon footprint attributed to asthma care when scaled to the entire UK asthma population was 750,540 tonnes CO2e/year, with poorly controlled asthma contributing to excess GHG emissions of 303,874 tonnes CO2e/year.
“Poorly controlled asthma generated three-fold higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita compared with well-controlled asthma, when taking into account GHG emissions related to all aspects of asthma care, including routine prescribing and management,” Dr. Bell explained. It also generated eight-fold higher excess per capita carbon footprint compared to well-controlled asthma.
SABA relievers represented the largest contributors to per capita asthma-related GHG emissions, accounting for more than 60% of overall GHG emissions and more than 90% of excess GHG emissions. The remainder was mostly due to healthcare resource utilization, such as GP and hospital visits, required to treat severe worsening symptoms.
The researchers acknowledged various limitations to their findings, including that the study results were largely descriptive in nature. And factors other than the level of asthma symptom control, such as prescribing patterns, may also have contributed to high SABA use.
Couple Optimized Patient Outcomes With Environmental Targets
With inappropriate SABA use having emerged as the single largest contributor to asthma care-related GHG emissions, improving this care could achieve substantial carbon emissions savings and help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors explained.
This improvement could include the adoption of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment strategies that, since 2019, no longer recommends that SABAs are used alone as the preferred reliever for acute asthma symptoms, the authors wrote.
However, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) asthma guidelines still recommend SABA alone as a reliever therapy.
On the other hand, the Primary Care Respiratory Society (PCRS) highlights on its website that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had approved the use of a dual (inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol) combination treatment to be used as a reliever therapy for people aged 12 and over.
“In the UK, this new therapy option does not yet sit within an approved national guideline as NICE last updated its treatment pathway in 2020. We await a new national asthma guideline but do not anticipate this new joint approach between NICE, BTS [British Thoracic Society], and SIGN [Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network] to publish until 2024,” the society wrote.
Dr. Bell explained that the carbon footprint of asthma care increased with higher socio-economic deprivation. “Thus, targeting suboptimal care to areas of higher deprivation could help improve patient outcomes and address health inequities, with the additional benefit of reducing the overall carbon footprint of asthma care,” he said.
This coupling of optimized patient outcomes with environmental targets to decrease GHG emissions could be extended to other chronic progressive diseases, particularly those associated with multi-morbidities, the authors wrote.
Dr. Andy Whittamore, MBBS, clinical lead at Asthma + Lung UK, who was not involved in the research, said: “This study highlights that high levels of uncontrolled asthma not only put thousands of people at risk of life-threatening asthma attacks, but also have a detrimental effect on the environment. It’s important to point out that people shouldn’t stop taking their inhalers because they are worried about the environment. The best thing for the environment is to keep your asthma under control,” he emphasized.
Please refer to the study for full study author disclosures.Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape UK.
Asthma is not well controlled in about half of patients with the disease in the UK and Europe, increasing the risk of hospital admission and severe illness, and increasing healthcare costs.
Now, the authors of a new study have reported that poorly controlled asthma is also associated with a higher carbon footprint, eight times higher than that of well-controlled asthma and equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by more than 124,000 homes each year in the UK.
The study was published in the journal Thorax and is part of the Healthcare-Based Environmental Cost of Treatment (CARBON) programme, which aims to provide a broader understanding of the carbon footprint associated with respiratory care.
John Bell, BMBCh, medical director of BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, and co-author of the study, said that he was surprised by the scale to which poorly controlled asthma contributed to the overall carbon footprint of asthma care. “This suggests that suboptimal asthma care is not just a public health issue, but also one which has environmental consequences,” he said.
Improving the care of asthma patients could help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors suggested.
SABA – Largest Contributor to Asthma-Related Greenhouse Gases
Healthcare is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the NHS set an ambitious target of reducing its carbon footprint by 80% over the next 15 years, with the aim of reaching net zero by 2045.
To estimate the environmental footprint of asthma care in the UK, the researchers retrospectively analyzed anonymized data of 236,506 people with asthma submitted to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2008 and 2019.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), were then estimated for asthma-related medication use, healthcare resource utilization, and severe exacerbations.
Well-controlled asthma was considered as having no episodes of severe worsening symptoms and fewer than three prescriptions of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) reliever inhalers in a year. Poorly controlled asthma included three or more SABA canister prescriptions or one or more episodes of severe worsening symptoms in a year.
Almost one in two patients with asthma (47.3%) were categorized as being poorly controlled.
The researchers estimated the overall carbon footprint attributed to asthma care when scaled to the entire UK asthma population was 750,540 tonnes CO2e/year, with poorly controlled asthma contributing to excess GHG emissions of 303,874 tonnes CO2e/year.
“Poorly controlled asthma generated three-fold higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita compared with well-controlled asthma, when taking into account GHG emissions related to all aspects of asthma care, including routine prescribing and management,” Dr. Bell explained. It also generated eight-fold higher excess per capita carbon footprint compared to well-controlled asthma.
SABA relievers represented the largest contributors to per capita asthma-related GHG emissions, accounting for more than 60% of overall GHG emissions and more than 90% of excess GHG emissions. The remainder was mostly due to healthcare resource utilization, such as GP and hospital visits, required to treat severe worsening symptoms.
The researchers acknowledged various limitations to their findings, including that the study results were largely descriptive in nature. And factors other than the level of asthma symptom control, such as prescribing patterns, may also have contributed to high SABA use.
Couple Optimized Patient Outcomes With Environmental Targets
With inappropriate SABA use having emerged as the single largest contributor to asthma care-related GHG emissions, improving this care could achieve substantial carbon emissions savings and help the NHS meet its net zero target, the authors explained.
This improvement could include the adoption of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment strategies that, since 2019, no longer recommends that SABAs are used alone as the preferred reliever for acute asthma symptoms, the authors wrote.
However, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) asthma guidelines still recommend SABA alone as a reliever therapy.
On the other hand, the Primary Care Respiratory Society (PCRS) highlights on its website that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had approved the use of a dual (inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol) combination treatment to be used as a reliever therapy for people aged 12 and over.
“In the UK, this new therapy option does not yet sit within an approved national guideline as NICE last updated its treatment pathway in 2020. We await a new national asthma guideline but do not anticipate this new joint approach between NICE, BTS [British Thoracic Society], and SIGN [Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network] to publish until 2024,” the society wrote.
Dr. Bell explained that the carbon footprint of asthma care increased with higher socio-economic deprivation. “Thus, targeting suboptimal care to areas of higher deprivation could help improve patient outcomes and address health inequities, with the additional benefit of reducing the overall carbon footprint of asthma care,” he said.
This coupling of optimized patient outcomes with environmental targets to decrease GHG emissions could be extended to other chronic progressive diseases, particularly those associated with multi-morbidities, the authors wrote.
Dr. Andy Whittamore, MBBS, clinical lead at Asthma + Lung UK, who was not involved in the research, said: “This study highlights that high levels of uncontrolled asthma not only put thousands of people at risk of life-threatening asthma attacks, but also have a detrimental effect on the environment. It’s important to point out that people shouldn’t stop taking their inhalers because they are worried about the environment. The best thing for the environment is to keep your asthma under control,” he emphasized.
Please refer to the study for full study author disclosures.Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape UK.
FROM THORAX