History of guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma: from opinion to control

An update on asthma diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

Asthma imposes a significant health and socioeconomic burden with an average prevalence impacting 5-10% of the global population. The aim of this narrative review is to update the current literature on topics related to asthma diagnosis.

DATA SOURCES

Original research articles were identified from PubMed using the search terms "asthma diagnosis" and "asthma misdiagnosis".

STUDY SELECTIONS

Recently published articles (n = 51) detailing the diagnosis, misdiagnosis of asthma, and the updated recommendations of the European and international asthma guidelines.

RESULTS

Emerging evidence revealed that asthma might represent a rather heterogenous clinical entity with varying underlying molecular mechanisms. Attempts have been made to unravel these traits to better provide accurate diagnosis and a more efficient patient-based management approach. The lack of a gold standard test for asthma diagnosis has contributed to its over- and underdiagnosis. This is problematic, given that overdiagnosis might lead to delay of both diagnosis and prompt treatment of other diseases, while underdiagnosis might substantially impact quality of life due to progression of asthma by increased rate of exacerbations and airway remodeling. In addition to poor asthma control and potential patient harm, asthma misdiagnosis is also associated with excessive costs. As a result, current international guidelines emphasize the need for a standardized approach to diagnosis, including objective measurements prior to treatment.

CONCLUSION

Future research is warranted to define the optimal diagnostic and treatable traits approach especially for patients with severe asthma, as they may benefit from the advent of newly targeted asthma management.

The association between asthma control, health care costs, and quality of life in France and Spain

Background

Current asthma management guidelines are based on the level of asthma control. The impact of asthma control on health care resources and quality of life (QoL) is insufficiently studied. EUCOAST study was designed to describe costs and QoL in adult patients according to level of asthma control in France and Spain.

Methods

An observational cost of illness study was conducted simultaneously in both countries among patients age greater or equal to 18 with a diagnosis of asthma for at least 12 months. Patients were recruited prospectively by GPs in 2010 in four waves to avoid a seasonal bias. Health care resources utilization of the three months before the inclusion was collected through physician questionnaires. Asthma control was evaluated using 2009 GINA criteria over a 3-month period. QoL was assessed using EQ-5D-3L^®.

Results

2,671 patients (France: 1,154; Spain: 1,517) were enrolled. Asthma was controlled in 40.6% [95% CI: 37.7% - 43.4%] and 29.9% [95% CI: 27.6% - 32.3%] of French and Spanish patients respectively.

For all types of costs, the percentage of patients using health care resources varied significantly according to the level of asthma control. The average cost (euros/3-months/patient) of controlled asthma was €85.4 (SD: 153.5) in France compared with €314.0 (SD: 2,160.4) for partially controlled asthma and €537.9 (SD: 2,355.7) for uncontrolled asthma (p<0.0001). In Spain, the corresponding figures were €152.6 (SD: 162.1), €241.2 (SD: 266.8), and €556.8 (SD: 762.4). EQ-5D-3L^® score was higher (p<0.0001) in patients with controlled asthma compared to partially controlled and uncontrolled asthma in both countries (respectively 0.88; 0.78; 0.63 in France and 0.89; 0.82; 0.69 in Spain).

Conclusions

In both countries, patients presenting with uncontrolled asthma had a significantly higher asthma costs and lower scores of Qol compared to the others.

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma: a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials in childhood asthma, outcomes reflecting short-term disease activity are frequently measured, whilst functional status, quality of life (QoL), and long-term treatment effects are rarely assessed. There is also non-uniformity across studies in the selection and measurement of outcomes within these domains. The development of a core outcome set has the potential to reduce heterogeneity between trials, lead to research that is more likely to have measured relevant outcomes, and enhance the value of evidence synthesis by reducing the risk of outcome reporting bias and ensuring that all trials contribute usable information.

METHODS

Paediatricians and specialist nurses, identified through the British Paediatric Respiratory Society, completed a two-round Delphi survey. Separate cohorts of parents of children younger than 18 years, recruited in clinics, participated in each round. Young people with asthma, aged at least 13 years, participated in the first round. Outcomes were identified separately for preschool and school-aged children.We identified outcomes considered important in routine clinical assessment by clinicians and parents/young people. In round 1, 46 clinicians suggested outcomes they considered important when deciding whether to adjust a child's asthma therapy regime, and 49 parents/young people were asked, using open questions, how they judged whether their child's (for young people, their own) asthma therapy was appropriate. Two researchers independently classified responses into appropriate, corresponding outcomes.In round 2, 43 clinicians and 50 parents scored, from 0-4, the importance of each outcome suggested by at least 10 % of round 1 responders and selected the three most important.

RESULTS

The most important outcomes, when making shared decisions about regular therapies for school-aged and preschool children with asthma, were daytime and nocturnal symptoms, exacerbations, QoL, and mortality. Results from parents and clinicians were generally concordant, but parents placed more emphasis on long-term treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a methodology to identify outcomes of most relevance to clinicians, parents, and young people when evaluating regularly administered therapies for asthma. Daytime and nocturnal symptoms, exacerbations, QoL, and mortality are particularly important outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of regular therapies for children with asthma.

Communication and education about triggers and environmental control strategies during pediatric asthma visits

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which providers, caregivers, and pediatric asthma patients discussed environmental trigger control during primary care visits, and any demographic characteristics associated with having these discussions.

METHODS

Children ages 8-16 with persistent asthma and their caregivers were recruited at five pediatric practices in non-urban areas of North Carolina. All of the medical visits were audio-tape recorded. We administered questionnaires to the child's caregiver following the visit.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-six patients had useable audio-tape data. Providers typically discussed at least one type of asthma trigger during these visits (86% of visits). The most common discussions were about exercise (70%), the weather/season (42%), and allergies/pollen (35%). Environmental control strategies were discussed less frequently (27% of visits). Providers educated the patient and their caregiver about environmental control strategies during 14% of the visits.

CONCLUSION

Although providers frequently discuss some environmental triggers and provide education, there is room for more comprehensive discussions of these issues, which may contribute to decreased asthma exacerbations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers, or alternatively, asthma health educators, should devote more time to discussing environmental asthma triggers and control strategies with pediatric asthma patients and their families, as they are important components of overall asthma control.

Caregiver rating of provider participatory decision-making style and caregiver and child satisfaction with pediatric asthma visits

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between caregiver ratings of provider use of a participatory decision-making style and caregiver and child satisfaction with their pediatric asthma visits.

METHODS

Children ages 8 through 16 with persistent asthma and their caregivers were recruited at five pediatric practices. Children were interviewed and caregivers completed questionnaires after their child's medical visits. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty children were recruited. Caregivers were significantly more satisfied with providers who they perceived as using more of a participatory decision-making style (beta=17.80, p<0.001). Children (beta=-0.10, p<0.05) and caregivers (beta=-0.21, p<0.01) were significantly more satisfied with younger providers. Children were significantly more satisfied with providers who knew them better as a person (beta=2.87, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Caregivers were more satisfied with providers who they perceived as involving them more during treatment decisions made during pediatric asthma visits.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers should attempt to use a more participatory decision-making style with families during pediatric asthma visits.

Child- and caregiver-reported problems and concerns in using asthma medications

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to (a) describe the types of medication problems/concerns that asthmatic children and their caregivers reported and (b) examine the association between child and caregiver demographic and sociocultural characteristics and reported asthma medication problems/concerns.

METHODS

Children ages 8 through 16 with mild, moderate, or severe persistent asthma and their caregivers were recruited at five pediatric practices in nonurban areas of North Carolina. Children were interviewed and caregivers completed questionnaires after their child's medical visits about reported problems/concerns in using asthma medications. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty children were recruited. Eighty-seven percent of the children reported a problem or concern in using their asthma medications. Approximately 40% of children reported side effects and a similar percent stated that it was hard to understand the directions on their medicines; in addition 60% reported that it was hard to remember when to take their medicines. Females and non-White children were significantly more likely to report they were not sure how to use an inhaler than males and White children. Younger and non-White children were significantly more likely to report it was hard to understand the directions on their medicines than older and White children. Caregivers were most likely to report that their children were bothered a little or a lot by side effects (31%) and a similar percent (29%) were not sure their children were using their inhalers properly. Caregivers without Medicaid were significantly more likely to report difficulty paying for the asthma medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication side effects are a significant problem area for both children and their caregivers, and inhaler skill-based training is particularly needed for non-White children. Health care providers should discuss with children and their caregivers the types of problems/concerns that children may have when using their asthma medications.

Does the current stepwise approach to asthma pharmacotherapy encourage over-treatment?

For the past 20 years, asthma pharmacotherapy has been described in clinical practice guidelines in terms of a stepwise approach, with medications and/or doses increased if asthma is not well-controlled, and reduced once good control is achieved and maintained. Although many patients with asthma are untreated, there are also significant problems with over-treatment once regular controller therapy is commenced. This increases the cost of treatment and exposes patients to unnecessary risks of side-effects. The present pro-con debate addresses the question of whether the stepwise approach itself leads to over-treatment. Two asthma experts discuss factors for and against this proposition, identify issues on which more research is needed, and suggest areas in which guidelines can be changed in order to facilitate more appropriate prescribing of asthma medications. These strategies include better validation of the concepts underlying asthma treatment recommendations, stronger recommendations that every treatment change should be followed up with a scheduled review using evidence-based assessment tools and incorporation of phenotype-specific considerations into treatment recommendations. In addition, the process for development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines should ensure that recommendations are easily understood, feasible to implement, and relevant to everyday asthma care and the needs and concerns of patients and clinicians.

The effect of aminophylline on loss of consciousness, bispectral index, propofol requirement, and minimum alveolar concentration of desflurane in volunteers

BACKGROUND

Adenosine is a soporific neuromodulator; aminophylline, which is clinically used as a bronchodilator, antagonizes the action of adenosine in the central nervous system. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that aminophylline delays loss of consciousness (LOC) and speeds recovery of consciousness (ROC) with propofol anesthesia, and that aminophylline increases the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of desflurane.

METHODS

In this double-blind crossover study, volunteers were randomized to either aminophylline or saline on different days. Aminophylline 6 mg/kg was given IV, followed by 1.5 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) throughout the study day. After 1 h of aminophylline or saline administration, propofol 200 mg was given at a rate of 20 mg/min. The bispectral index was continuously monitored, as were times to LOC and ROC. After recovery from propofol, general anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane and subsequently maintained with desflurane. The Dixon "up-and-down" method was used to determine MAC in each volunteer after repeated tetanic electrical stimulation.

RESULTS

Eight volunteers completed both study days. Time to LOC was prolonged by aminophylline compared with saline (mean +/- SD) (7.7 +/- 2.03 min vs 5.1 +/- 0.75 s, respectively, P = 0.011). The total propofol dose at LOC was larger with aminophylline (2.2 +/- 0.9 vs 1.4 +/- 0.4 mg/kg, P = 0.01), and the time to ROC was shorter (6.18 +/- 3.96 vs 12.2 +/- 4.73 min, P = 0.035). The minimum bispectral index was greater with aminophylline (51 +/- 15 vs 38 +/- 9, P = 0.034). There was no difference in MAC.

CONCLUSION

Aminophylline decreases the sedative effects of propofol but does not affect MAC of desflurane as determined by tetanic electrical stimulation.