Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research Article

The predictive value of asthma medications to identify individuals with asthma--a study in German general practices.

W Himmel, E Hummers-Pradier, H Schümann and M M Kochen
British Journal of General Practice 2001; 51 (472): 879-883.
W Himmel
Department of General Practice, University of Göttingen, Germany. whimmel@gwdg.de
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
E Hummers-Pradier
Department of General Practice, University of Göttingen, Germany. whimmel@gwdg.de
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H Schümann
Department of General Practice, University of Göttingen, Germany. whimmel@gwdg.de
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M M Kochen
Department of General Practice, University of Göttingen, Germany. whimmel@gwdg.de
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The assessment of prescribing performance by aggregated measures mainly developed from automated databases is often helpful for general practitioners. For asthma treatment, the frequently applied ratio of anti-inflammatory to bronchodilator drugs may, however, be misleading if the specificity of a drug for the treatment of asthma, compared with other diseases, is unknown. AIM: To test the association of specific drugs with the diagnosis of asthma compared with other diagnoses. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional study analysing prescription data from a retrospective chart review. SETTING: Eight general practices and one community respiratory practice in a town in Northern Germany. METHOD: All patients in the participating practices who received at least one of the 50 asthma drugs most frequently prescribed in Germany within the past 12 weeks were identified. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (ClI) were calculated to reveal any association between a specific drug and the diagnosis of asthma. The unit of analysis was the item prescribed. RESULTS: Topical betamimetics (e.g salbutamol, fenoterol) were the most often prescribed asthma drugs in the general practices (52.1 ) and in the respiratory practice (57.6%). Inhaled steroids accounted for 15% and 13%; systemic steroids accounted for 10% and 13%, respectively. In the general practices, inhaled betamimetics had a moderate marker function for asthma (OR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.14-3.58). A fixed oral combination drug of clenbuterol plus ambroxol was a marker drug against asthma (OR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.20-0.61). In the respiratory practice, the diagnosis of asthma was strongly marked by fixed combinations of cromoglycate plus betamimetics (OR = 29.0; 95% CI = 6.86-122.24) and moderately by inhaled betamimetics (OR = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.28-5.14). In contrast, systemic steroids (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.10-0.57) and even inhaled steroids (OR = 0.46; 95% ClI= 0.22-0.96) proved to contradict the diagnosis of asthma. CONCLUSION: Only betamimetics were markers for asthma patients in both types of practices; inhaled steroids, however, were not. Combinations of cromoglycate were markers in the respiratory practice only. Limited specificity of drugs for a disease (e.g asthma) should be taken into account when analysing prescribing data that are not diagnosis linked.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 51 (472)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 51, Issue 472
November 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The predictive value of asthma medications to identify individuals with asthma--a study in German general practices.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The predictive value of asthma medications to identify individuals with asthma--a study in German general practices.
W Himmel, E Hummers-Pradier, H Schümann, M M Kochen
British Journal of General Practice 2001; 51 (472): 879-883.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The predictive value of asthma medications to identify individuals with asthma--a study in German general practices.
W Himmel, E Hummers-Pradier, H Schümann, M M Kochen
British Journal of General Practice 2001; 51 (472): 879-883.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Factors influencing help seeking in mentally distressed young adults: a cross-sectional survey.
  • Interprofessional collaboration and interprofessional education.
  • The role of primary care in the prevention of suicide and accidental deaths among young men: an epidemiological study.
Show more Research Article

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242