Background

Activated mast cells are present within airway smooth muscle (ASM) bundles in eosinophilic asthma. ASM production of the chemokine CXCL10 plays a role in their recruitment. Thus the effects of glucocorticoids (fluticasone, budesonide), long-acting β2-agonists (salmeterol, formoterol) and thiazolidinediones (ciglitazone, rosiglitazone) on CXCL10 production by ASM cells (ASMC) from people with and without asthma were investigated in vitro.

Methods

Confluent serum-deprived cells were treated with the agents before and during cytokine stimulation for 0-24 h. CXCL10 protein/mRNA, IκB-α levels and p65 activity were measured using ELISA, RT PCR, immunoblotting and p65 activity assays respectively. Data were analysed using ANOVA followed by Fisher’s post-hoc test.

Results

Fluticasone and/or salmeterol at 1 and 100 nM inhibited CXCL10 release induced by IL-1β and TNF-α, but not IFNγ or all three cytokines (cytomix). The latter was also not affected by budesonide and formoterol. In asthmatic ASMC low salmeterol, but not formoterol, concentrations increased cytomix-induced CXCL10 release and at 0.01 nM enhanced NF-κB activity. Salmeterol 0.1nM together with fluticasone 0.1 and 10 nM still increased CXCL10 release. The thiazolidinediones ciglitazone and rosiglitazone (at 25 and 100 μM) inhibited cytomix-induced CXCL10 release but these inhibitory effects were not prevented by the PPAR-g antagonist GW9662. Ciglitazone did not affect early NF-κB activity and CXCL10 mRNA production.

Conclusions

Thus the thiazolidinediones inhibited asthmatic ASMC CXCL10 release under conditions when common asthma therapies were ineffective or enhanced it. They may provide an alternative strategy to reduce mast cell-ASM interactions and restore normal airway physiology in asthma.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of a single educational intervention, followed by patient education training, in pharmacists retaining their inhaler technique skills.

Methods

A convenience sample of 31 pharmacists attended an educational workshop and their inhaler techniques were assessed. Those randomly assigned to the active group were trained to assess and teach correct Turbuhaler and Diskus inhaler techniques to patients and provided with patient education tools to use in their pharmacies during a 6-month study. Control pharmacists delivered standard care. All pharmacists were reassessed 2 years after initial training.

Results

Thirty-one pharmacists participated in the study. At the initial assessment, few pharmacists demonstrated correct technique (Turbuhaler:13%, Diskus:6%). All pharmacists in the active group demonstrated correct technique following training. Two years later, pharmacists in the active group demonstrated significantly better inhaler technique than pharmacists in the control group (p < 0.05) for Turbuhaler and Diskus (83% vs.11%; 75% vs.11%, respectively).

Conclusion

Providing community pharmacists with effective patient education tools and encouraging their involvement in educating patients may contribute to pharmacists maintaining their competence in correct inhaler technique long-term.

Background

The role of community pharmacists in disease state management has been mooted for some years. Despite a number of trials of disease state management services, there is scant literature into the engagement of, and with, pharmacists in such trials. This paper reports pharmacists’ feedback as providers of a Pharmacy Asthma Management Service (PAMS), a trial coordinated across four academic research centres in Australia in 2009. We also propose recommendations for optimal involvement of pharmacists in academic research.

Methods

Feedback about the pharmacists’ experiences was sought via their participation in either a focus group or telephone interview (for those unable to attend their scheduled focus group) at one of three time points. A semi-structured interview guide focused discussion on the pharmacists’ training to provide the asthma service, their interactions with health professionals and patients as per the service protocol, and the future for this type of service. Focus groups were facilitated by two researchers, and the individual interviews were shared between three researchers, with data transcribed verbatim and analysed manually.

Results

Of 93 pharmacists who provided the PAMS, 25 were involved in a focus group and seven via telephone interview. All pharmacists approached agreed to provide feedback. In general, the pharmacists engaged with both the service and research components, and embraced their roles as innovators in the trial of a new service. Some experienced challenges in the recruitment of patients into the service and the amount of research-related documentation, and collaborative patient-centred relationships with GPs require further attention. Specific service components, such as the spirometry, were well received by the pharmacists and their patients. Professional rewards included satisfaction from their enhanced practice, and pharmacists largely envisaged a future for the service.

Conclusions

The PAMS provided pharmacists an opportunity to become involved in an innovative service delivery model, supported by the researchers, yet trained and empowered to implement the clinical service throughout the trial period and beyond. The balance between support and independence appeared crucial in the pharmacists’ engagement with the trial. Their feedback was overwhelmingly positive, while useful suggestions were identified for future academic trials.