Effectiveness of inhaled therapies in asthma among adults in Northern Sri Lanka, a low and middle-income country: A prospective observational study =================================================================================================================================================== * Yalini Guruparan * Thiyahiny S Navaratinaraja * Gowry Selvaratnam * Shalini Sri Ranganathan ## Abstract **Background** Currently inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or in combined with inhaled long- acting beta2-agonist (LABA) is recommended for chronic asthma. **Objective** This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of inhaled therapies in a cohort of adult patients with asthma who were receiving treatment in a tertiary hospital in the Northern Sri Lanka. **Methods** A prospective cohort study was carried out among adult patients with asthma on inhaled medications for at least three months. Participants were followed up for six months with two follow-up interviews three months apart. Primary outcome measure was asthma control which was assessed by a locally validated asthma control patient-reported outcome measure (AC-PROM). Secondary outcome measures were use of short-acting beta2-agonists, number of nebulisations and number of hospitalisations. Chi-squared test was used to determine the significance of differences in outcome measures between the two groups. Logistic regression was performed to determine the association between asthma control and socio-demographic factors. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. **Results** Data from 1094 participants were analysed. Majority were females (73%) and belonged to age group >60 years (60%). Ratio between ICS monotherapy and combined therapy with ICS and LABA (ICS/LABA) was 3:1. A progressive improvement in asthma control was observed in both groups which was significant in those on ICS monotherapy (p<0.001). A significant reduction was also observed in overuse of short-acting beta2-agonist (p<0.001) and number of nebulisations (p=0.027) in participants on ICS monotherapy. No significant association between asthma control and socio-demographic factors was found in either group. **Conclusions** Both ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA were effective. However, treatment package comprising regular ICS plus non-pharmacological approaches would be more realistic and cost-effective treatment strategy in the local context. Considering the low availability and current economic status of Sri Lanka, ICS/LABA could be reserved for poorly controlled asthma. **What is already known on this topic?**Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or in combined with inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) are recommended for the treatment of asthma. However, availability and affordability limit the use of inhaled medications in low and middle-income countries, particularly the combined therapy with ICS and LABA (ICS/LABA). **What this study adds** This study was conducted in a real-life clinical setting to compare the effectiveness of ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA. We found that close monitoring and improved communication positively impacted asthma control and exacerbations in both ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA. These changes were significant in those on ICS monotherapy, but not in those on ICS/LABA. **How this study might affect research, practice, or policy** Our study highlighted the importance of non-pharmacological approaches in the management of asthma. Promoting non-pharmacological approaches in routine clinical practice is likely to improve asthma control and reduce the need for escalation of treatment leading to improved quality of life and reduced healthcare costs. Keywords * asthma control patient-reported outcome measure * effectiveness * inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy * inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist ## Introduction Asthma is one of the common global health problems affecting all age groups and the prevalence of asthma is rising worldwide.[1] It was reported that in Sri Lanka prevalence of asthma in adults was 11%.[2] Though asthma is not curable, it is controllable with appropriate treatment.[3] Despite the availability of effective therapies and asthma treatment guidelines, more than half of the patients experience uncontrolled asthma.[4-5] Uncontrolled asthma increases the risk of exacerbations and economic burden to families and health care system of the country.[6-8] Currently, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or with inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) is recommended as the first-line treatment of asthma.[1] However, in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) the availability and affordability of inhaled medications for asthma is poor.[9-11] Universal access to effective treatment is the key element in the management of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) including asthma. Therefore, the World Health Organization has set a target of 80% availability of medications required to treat major NCDs by 2025. [12] Poor availability and affordability of inhaled medications hinder effective asthma control in LMICs.[9-11] It is an urgent need to ensure universal access to essential asthma medicines in LMICs. Sri Lanka is a LMIC with majority of the people relying on free public sector healthcare services.[13-14] However, a significant proportion of healthcare expenditure is from out-of-pocket including purchasing medications from private pharmacies.[15] In the public sector, availability of ICS monotherapy was reported to be 81% meeting the WHO’s target whereas the availability of combined therapy with ICS and LABA (ICS/LABA) was very low (17%). In the private sector availability of ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA were 75% and 63% respectively.[16] Price of ICS/LABA was two and half times higher than ICS monotherapy which could account for this disparity.[17] Lack of availability in the public sector and unaffordability in the private sector could have limited the use of ICS/LABA in the management of asthma. Many studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of different treatments for asthma including inhaled therapies in high-income countries.[18-20] However, such studies are limited in LMICs. Our study aimed to assess the effectiveness of inhaled therapies (ICS monotherapy versus ICS/LABA) in asthma control in a cohort of adult patients who were receiving treatment at Teaching Hospital-Jaffna, a tertiary hospital in the Northern Sri Lanka using a locally validated asthma control patient-reported outcome measure (AC-PROM). [21] ## Methods This was a prospective cohort study among adult patients with asthma at Teaching Hospital, Jaffna which is the largest tertiary care hospital in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka and offers primary, secondary and tertiary health care services to the people residing in Jaffna district. Adult patients with asthma on inhaled medication for at least three months were included in this study. Those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and tuberculosis were excluded. Sample size per group to determine the statistically significant difference in asthma control between ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA was estimated with 90% power [22] using the proportion of patients with controlled asthma in ICS monotherapy (49%) and ICS/LABA (63%) reported by Pauwls *et al*.[23] ### Case definition of asthma In this study asthma was defined as “symptoms such as wheeze, shortness of breath, cough, and chest tightness that vary over time and intensity together with variable airflow limitation”.[1] ### Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measure for the effectiveness of inhaled therapies was asthma control which was determined by AC-PROM score.[21] Secondary outcome measures include frequency of usage of short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), number of nebulisations and number of hospitalisations due to exacerbation of asthma. ### Study instrument A pretested interviewer-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. The questionnaire had three parts namely baseline, first follow-up and second follow-up. Baseline questionnaire sought information on socio-demographic characteristics, medication history, asthma care history, usage of SABA, number of nebulisations, number of hospital admissions and adherence. Follow-up questionnaires contained the same sections as the baseline questionnaire except the socio-demographic characteristics. All three parts contained AC-PROM to assess asthma control at the time of recruitment and first and second follow-ups. The AC-PROM was a locally developed tool which was validated against forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of patients with asthma. It contains eight items assessing symptoms (4 items), exacerbation (2 items) and limitation of activity (2 items).[21] ### Recruitment and follow-up Around 2500 adult patients with asthma were being followed up in medical clinics. These patients were screened for eligibility using a pre-recruitment checklist. Those on inhaled medications for at least three months were recruited into the cohort consecutively from December 2019 to June 2020. Each participant was followed up for six months with two follow-up interviews at three-month intervals. The first author personally collected the data. Informed written consent was obtained from each participant before recruitment. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka (EC-18-108) and administrative approvals were obtained from relevant authorities before commencing the data collection. ### Data analysis Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation (SD were used to present the results. Asthma control was determined using the AC-PROM score. The cut-off value of the AC-PROM score for asthma control was ≥28.5. [21 Guruparan] Use of SABA four, or more than four times per week was considered as overuse indicating inadequate control of asthma. [24] Monthly household income was categorised based on the latest (2016) Sri Lankan household income.[25] Percent change was used to measure the changes in primary and secondary outcome measures between base-line and second follow-up. Chi-squared test was performed to determine the significance of changes in the outcome measures. Logistic regression was performed to determine the association of socio-demographic factors with asthma control. A p value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ## Results A total of 1200 participants were recruited into the cohort. Of them 1118 completed the two follow-ups (completion rate was 93.2%). Participants on SABA alone (n=2) and those who were taking oral medications in addition to inhaled therapy (n=22) were excluded from the analysis. Data from 1094 participants were analysed. Out of 1094 participants three fourth (75.6%; n=827) were on ICS monotherapy (beclomethasone dipropionate) and one-fourth (24.4%; n=267) were on ICS/LABA (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol=245 and budesonide/formoterol=22). During the follow-up no changes were observed in the treatment of asthma in any of the participants in either group. Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. Mean age of the participants was 61.2 years (SD±11.6) and majority (60%) belonged to the age group >60 years. Around three-quarters of the participants (73%) were females. Most of the participants (60%) were housewives. More than half (57.6%) had low monthly household income. None of the participants in either group were current smokers. There was no significant association between asthma control and socio-demographic factors in either group. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24309593/T1) Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants Table 2 shows the primary and secondary outcome measures. A progressive improvement in asthma control was observed in both groups. However, the improvement was significant only in those on ICS monotherapy (p<0.0001). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24309593/T2) Table 2. Primary and secondary outcome measures over a period of six months Though all the secondary outcome measures showed a progressive improvement in both groups, statistically significant reduction was observed in overuse of SABA (p<0.001) and nebulisation (p=0.02) in those on ICS monotherapy (Table 2). Percent changes in asthma control, overuse of SABA, number of nebulisations and number of hospitalisations when comparing baseline and second follow-up are shown in Figure 1. Almost five times greater improvement in asthma control was observed in participants on ICS monotherapy compared to those on ICS/LABA. Reduction in overuse of SABA, nebulisation and hospitalisation among patients receiving ICS monotherapy was almost twice as much as those on ICS/LABA. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24309593/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24309593/F1) Figure 1. Percent changes in outcome measures ICS-inhaled corticosteroid, LABA-long-acting beta2-agonist, SABA-short-acting beta2-agonist When comparing baseline and second follow-up, a significant reduction in number of patients who forgot to take the therapy was observed in both ICS monotherapy (from 32.6% to 10.9%; p<0.001) and ICS/LABA (from 34.8% to 22.5%; p=0.002). However, reduction in number of patients who stopped the medications when they felt better did not show significant reduction in either group (monotherapy with ICS-from 81.3% to 77.6%; ICS/LABA - from 56.9% to 58.8%). ## Discussion This study has generated evidence on the effectiveness of ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA as opposed to many interventional studies which have documented the efficacy of these therapies. Effectiveness relates to how well a treatment works in real-life non-ideal circumstances, as opposed to efficacy, which measures how well it works in randomized controlled trial (RCT), or laboratory studies.[26] In fact, high-quality post-marketing observational studies are now considered as very important complement to the results of RCT in providing evidence on safety and effectiveness.[27] This cohort study demonstrated that both ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA were effective in controlling asthma. The age and gender distribution of our cohort (60% over 60 years, female preponderance) reflects the demography of the country.[25] Hence, our data could be generalizable to the country. However, there can be some inter-regional variation depending on other determinants of effectiveness such as appropriate use of inhaled medications, adherence and inhalation technique.[28] In our cohort only about one-fourth (24.4%) of the participants were on ICS/LABA. This figure was very much lower than high-income counties [18, 29-30] but, it was higher than the figures reported from LMICs such as Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Peru and Uganda. [9-11, 31] A survey in Sri Lanka reported that the availability of ICS monotherapy in the public and private sectors was 81% and 75% respectively whereas the availability of ICS/LABA in the public and private sector was 17% and 63% respectively. [16] Since our cohort comprises patients receiving treatment in a public hospital, the low figure of 25% being on ICS/LABA is not unexpected. Poor economic access in the private sector could be the main cause for minimal use of ICS/LABA in this cohort of patients receiving treatment from public sector. Furthermore, we noticed that (Table 1) a greater proportion (63%) of participants on ICS monotherapy had low household income compared to those on ICS/LABA (41%). This strengthens our argument that poor economic access is the main cause of minimal use of ICS/LABA. In addition, we noticed that distribution of other sociodemographic factors such as age, sex, educational level, employment status and smoking showed comparable trends in both categories. These observations confirm access, as opposed to evidence and guidelines, to determine the type of inhaled medication for asthma in the present study. We observed a progressive improvement in asthma control during the six-month follow-up in both groups. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma at the time of recruitment, first follow-up and second follow-up among those receiving ICS monotherapy were 54%, 66% and 72% respectively and that of participants on ICS/LABA were 76%, 79.4% and 80.9% respectively. This has been observed in other asthma cohort studies conducted in Turkey (61.5%, 82%, 84.8% and 87.3% in consecutive four visits) [32] and Poland (24.8%, 41.4%, 55.2% and 67.7% in consecutive four visits).[33] In our study percentage change in asthma control from baseline to second follow-up was greater (31.8%) in ICS monotherapy compared to ICS/LABA (6.4%). Further, a significant improvement in missed doses was observed from baseline to second follow-up in both groups. Interestingly improvement in asthma control in our cohort occurred without any change in the treatment of asthma. This brings in an important component in the treatment of asthma, close follow-up which ensures adherence. It has been documented that non-adherence to medications is an important cause for poor asthma control.[34-35] Factors contributing to non-adherence include low perceived need for asthma medications, inadequate communication between patients and physicians, perceived concern regarding medications and inadequate knowledge.[20,31,35-36] Studies have also reported that close monitoring, frequent interactions with healthcare team and repeated instructions improve adherence to medications.[24,37-38] Patient education improves the patients’ understanding and adherence resulting in better asthma control.[39-40] All these can be addressed by a structured patient education programme which includes close monitoring, frequent interactions with healthcare team, providing basic facts about treatment, reassurance regarding side effects and repeated instructions. Although there was no formal patient education programme in our study plan, participants were free to communicate with the investigators during the follow-up. This could have given opportunity to the participants to clarify their concerns regarding the treatment which could have contributed to the improvement in adherence leading to improved asthma control. However, there was no significant change in the proportion of participants who stopped the treatment when they felt better in either group. This indicates inadequate knowledge of disease among the participants. As there was no formal patient education in our study, the impact on knowledge of disease among the participants would be less. This could explain why the proportion of participants who stopped asthma medication when they felt better remained high. Traditionally, frequency of SABA use and number of acute attacks were the commonly used predictors for uncontrolled asthma.[19,29,41] We noticed that there was a significant reduction in overuse of SABA and number of nebulisations in ICS monotherapy group which was not seen in ICS/LABA group. In the local settings, because of the low availability, ICS/LABA is often reserved for difficult-to-control asthma. These patients are characterised by poor symptom control despite the regular treatment.[42] This could be the reason for lack of significant improvement in asthma control and predictors in those on ICS/LABA. ## Conclusions Our findings have shown that both ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA were effective in the treatment of asthma and improved over time. Non-pharmacological measures such as close follow-up and frequent communication with patients could have contributed to progressive improvement observed in this study. The impact of these measures was significant in those on ICS monotherapy but, limited in patients on ICS/LABA. Further, improved symptom control and reduction exacerbation would reduce the economic burden of asthma. Considering the low availability and affordability of ICS/LABA in the local settings, before switching to ICS/LABA, non-pharmacological measures such as regular follow-up, patient education and improving communication between patients and doctors must be tried in patients who fail to achieve adequate asthma control with ICS monotherapy. Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist could be offered to those who fail to achieve control with regular ICS monotherapy plus non-pharmacological measures. This approach would be more feasible and even cost-effective management strategy for asthma in Sri Lanka which is still struggling to recover from the recent economic crisis. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Contributors YG, TSN, GS and SSR were involved in the research conception. Study was conceptualized by all four authors. YG was the principal investigator and responsible for the data collection, entry and analysis with TSN and SSR for manuscript preparation. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. YG is the guarantor of this manuscript. ## Funding Authors received no financial support for this research. ## Competing interests None declared. ## Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination of this study. ## Ethics approval and consent to participants Approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka (EC-18-108). Permission was obtained from the Director, Teaching Hospital, Jaffna to collect the data. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. ## Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed. ## Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ## Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). ## Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all participants who took part in the research and made this work possible. Mr. S. Thayapran, senior technical officer, Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka helped to enter the data in database. * Received July 8, 2024. * Revision received July 8, 2024. * Accepted July 8, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Global Initiative for Asthma. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention 2023. Available: [https://ginasthma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GINA-2023-Full-report-23\_07\_06-WMS.pdf](https://ginasthma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GINA-2023-Full-report-23_07_06-WMS.pdf). Accessed on June 14 2024 2. 2.Gunasekera, KD, Amarasiri WADL, Undugodage UCM, et al. Prevalence of asthma and its symptoms in Sri Lankan adults. BMC Public Health 2022;22:2330. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-14793-3. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-022-14793-3&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.Rolla G. Why Current Therapy Does Not Cure Asthma. Is It Time to Move Towards a One Health Approach? J Asthma Allergy 2023;16:933–6. doi: 10.2147/JAA.S429646. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/JAA.S429646&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Busse WW, Kraft M. Current unmet needs and potential solutions to uncontrolled asthma. Eur Respir Rev 2022;31:210176. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0176-2021. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiZXJyZXYiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTM6IjMxLzE2My8yMTAxNzYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzA5NTkzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 5. 5.Gibson PG, McDonald VM, Thomas D. Treatable traits, combination inhaler therapy and the future of asthma management. Respirology 2023;28:828–40. doi: 10.1111/resp.14556. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/resp.14556&link_type=DOI) 6. 6.Peter SP, Ferguson G, Deniz Y, et al. Uncontrolled asthma: a review of the prevalence, disease burden and options for treatment. Respir Med 2006;100:1139–51. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2006.03.031. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.rmed.2006.03.031&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16713224&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24309593.atom) 7. 7.Nunes C, Pereira AM, Almeida MM. Asthma costs and social impact. Asthma Res Pract 2017;3:1. doi: 10.1186/s40733-016-0029-3. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s40733-016-0029-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28078100&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24309593.atom) 8. 8.Lopez-Tiro J, Contreras-Contreras A, Rodríguez-Arellano ME, et al. Economic burden of severe asthma treatment: A real-life study. World Allergy Organ J 2022 ;15(7):100662. doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2022.100662. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.waojou.2022.100662&link_type=DOI) 9. 9.Stolbrink M, Thomson H, Hadfield RM, et al. The availability, cost, and affordability of essential medicines for asthma and COPD in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Lancet Glob Health 2022;10(10):e1423–e1442. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00330-8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00330-8&link_type=DOI) 10. 10.Siddharthan T, Robertson NM, Rykiel NA, et al. Availability, affordability and access to essential medications for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in three low- and middle-income country settings. PLOS Glob Public Health 2022;2(12): e0001309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001309. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pgph.0001309&link_type=DOI) 11. 11.Mortimer K, Reddel HK, Pitrez PM, et al. Asthma management in low- and middle-income countries: case for change. Eur Respir J 2022;60(3):2103179. doi: 10.1183/13993003.03179-2021. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiI2MC8zLzIxMDMxNzkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzA5NTkzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 12. 12.World Health Organization 2013. Global action plan for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. Available: [https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/94384/9789241506236\_eng.pdf?sequence=1](https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/94384/9789241506236_eng.pdf?sequence=1) Accessed on June 14 2024 13. 13.Rajapaksa L, De Silva P, Abeykoon A, et al. Sri Lanka health system review. New Delhi: World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia 2021. Available: [https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/342323/9789290228530-eng.pdf?sequence=1](https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/342323/9789290228530-eng.pdf?sequence=1) Accessed on June 14 2024 14. 14.Govindaraj R, Navaratne K, Cavagnero E, et al. Health Care in Sri Lanka: What Can the Private Health Sector Offer? Health, Nutrition and Population (HNP) Discussion Paper Series 89554, The World Bank 2014. Available: [https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/423511468307190661/pdf/899540WP0Box380th0Care0in0Sri0Lanka.pdf](https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/423511468307190661/pdf/899540WP0Box380th0Care0in0Sri0Lanka.pdf) Accessed on June 14 2024 15. 15.Sri Lanka National Health Accounts 2017 and 2018. Ministry of Health Sri Lanka 2022. Available: [https://www.health.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/National-Health-Accounts-Sri-Lanka-Final-version-23.06.2022.pdf](https://www.health.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/National-Health-Accounts-Sri-Lanka-Final-version-23.06.2022.pdf) Accessed on June 14 2024 16. 16.Service Availability and Readiness Assessment 2017 Sri Lanka. Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine and Department of Census and Statistics 2018. Available: file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/SARASriLanka2017REPORT.pdf Accessed on June 14 2024 17. 17.State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Sri Lanka price list 2024. Available: [https://www.spc.lk/pub/pricelistretail.pdf](https://www.spc.lk/pub/pricelistretail.pdf) Accessed on June 14 2024 18. 18.Park HJ, Jeon S, Lee HS, et al. A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Asthma Medications on Asthma Exacerbations in Real World National Cohort. J Asthma Allergy 2022;15:1155–65. doi: 10.2147/JAA.S379394. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/JAA.S379394&link_type=DOI) 19. 19.Inoue H, Milligan KL, McConnon A, et al. Uncontrolled asthma: a retrospective cohort study in Japanese patients newly prescribed with medium-/high-dose ICS/LABA. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2021;31(1):12. doi: 10.1038/s41533-021-00222-2. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41533-021-00222-2&link_type=DOI) 20. 20.Munoz-Cano R, Torrego A, Bartra J, et al. Follow-up of patients with uncontrolled asthma: clinical features of asthma patients according to the level of control achieved (the COAS study). Eur Respir J 2017; 49(3):1501885. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01885-2015. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiI0OS8zLzE1MDE4ODUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzA5NTkzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 21. 21.Guruparan Y, Navaratinaraja TS, Selvaratnam G, et al. Development and validation of a set of patient reported outcome measures to assess effectiveness of asthma prophylaxis. BMC Pulm Med 2021;21:295. doi: 10.1186/s12890-021-01665-6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12890-021-01665-6&link_type=DOI) 22. 22.Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designing clinical research 4th ed 2007. 23. 23.Pauwels RA, Lofdahl CGL, Postma DS, et al. Effect of inhaled formoterol and budesonide on exacerbations of asthma. N Engl J Med 1997;337(20):1405–11. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199711133372001. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJM199711133372001&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9358137&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24309593.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997YF25300001&link_type=ISI) 24. 24.Jobin MS, Moisan J, Bolduc Y, et al. Factors associated with the appropriate use of asthma drugs. Can Respir J 2011;18(2):97–104. doi: 10.1155/2011/426528. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2011/426528&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21499595&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24309593.atom) 25. 25.Sri Lanka Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka. Ministry of Health and Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine 2017. Available: [http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Resource/en/Health/DemographicAndHealthSurveyReport-2016-Contents.pdf](http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Resource/en/Health/DemographicAndHealthSurveyReport-2016-Contents.pdf) Accessed on June 14 2024 26. 26.Marley J. Efficacy, effectiveness, efficiency. Aust Prescr 2000;23:114–5. doi: 10.18773/austprescr.2000.131. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18773/austprescr.2000.131&link_type=DOI) 27. 27.Blonde L, Khunti K, Harris SB, et al. Interpretation and Impact of Real-World Clinical Data for the Practicing Clinician. Adv Ther 2018;35:1763–74. doi: 10.1007/s12325-018-0805. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s12325-018-0805-y&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24309593.atom) 28. 28.Roche N, Chrystyn H, Lavorini F, et al. Effectiveness of inhaler devices in adult asthma and COPD. EMJ Respir 2013;1:64–71. doi: 10.33590/emjrespir/10313608. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.33590/emjrespir/10313608&link_type=DOI) 29. 29.Jaun F, Tröster LM, Giezendanne S, et al. Characteristics of Severe Asthma Patients and Predictors of Asthma Control in the Swiss Severe Asthma Registry. Respiration 2023;102(10):863–78. doi: 10.1159/000533474. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000533474&link_type=DOI) 30. 30.Allegra L, Cremonesi G, Girbino G, et al. PRISMA (PRospectIve Study on asthMA control) Study Group. Real-life prospective study on asthma control in Italy: cross-sectional phase results. Respir Med 2012;6:205–14. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.10.001. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.rmed.2011.10.001&link_type=DOI) 31. 31.Tabyshova A, Sooronbaev T, Akylbekov A, et al. Medication availability and economic barriers to adherence in asthma and COPD patients in low-resource settings. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2022; 32(1):20. doi: 10.1038/s41533-022-00281-z. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41533-022-00281-z&link_type=DOI) 32. 32.Yildiz F. Factors influencing asthma control: results of a real life prospective observational asthma inhaler treatment (ASIT) study. J Asthma Allergy 2013;6:93–101. doi: 10.2147/JAA.S45269. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/JAA.S45269&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23843695&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24309593.atom) 33. 33.Rogala B, Majak p, Gluck J, et al. Asthma control in adult patients treated with combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β2-agonists: a prospective observational study. Pol Arch Intern Med 2017;127(2):100–6. doi: 10.20452/pamw.3899. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.20452/pamw.3899&link_type=DOI) 34. 34.Ribo P, Molina J, Calle M, et al. Prevalence of modifiable factors limiting treatment efficacy of poorly controlled asthma patients: EFIMERA observational study. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2020;30(1):33. doi: 10.1038/s41533-020-00189-6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41533-020-00189-6&link_type=DOI) 35. 35.Aberhe W, Hailay A, Zereabruk K, et al. Non-adherence to inhaled medications among adult asthmatic patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asthma Res Pract 2020;6:12. doi: 10.1186/s40733-020-00065-7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s40733-020-00065-7&link_type=DOI) 36. 36.Amin S, Soliman M, McIvor A, et al. Understanding Patient Perspectives on Medication Adherence in Asthma: A Targeted Review of Qualitative Studies. Patient Prefer Adherence 2020;14:541–51. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S234651. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/PPA.S234651&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24309593.atom) 37. 37.Stewart SF, Moon Z, Horne R. Medication nonadherence: health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol Health 2023;38(6):726–65. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2022.2144923. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/08870446.2022.2144923&link_type=DOI) 38. 38.World Health Organization. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. World Health Organization; 2003. Available: [https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/42682/9?sequence=1](https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/42682/9?sequence=1) Accessed on Accessed on June 14 2024 39. 39.Mishra R, Kashif M, Venkatram S, et al. Role of Adult Asthma Education in Improving Asthma Control and Reducing Emergency Room Utilization and Hospital Admissions in an Inner-City Hospital. Can Respir J 2017; 2017:5681962. doi: 10.1155/2017/5681962. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2017/5681962&link_type=DOI) 40. 40.Zhang X, Lai Z, Qiu R, et al. Positive change in asthma control using therapeutic patient education in severe uncontrolled asthma: a one-year prospective study. Asthma Res Pract 2021;7(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40733-021-00076-y. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s40733-021-00076-y&link_type=DOI) 41. 41.Mulugeta T, Ayele T, Zeleke G, et al. Asthma control and its predictors in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2022 13;17(1):e0262566. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262566. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0262566&link_type=DOI) 42. 42.Mansur AH, Prasad N. Management of difficult-to-treat asthma in adolescence and young adults. Breathe (Sheff) 2023;19(1):220025. doi: 10.1183/20734735.0025-2022. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYnJlYXRoZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTkvMS8yMjAwMjUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzA5NTkzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)