The British Thoracic Society (BTS) and Scottish Intercollege Guidelines Network (SIGN), as well as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), have previously produced separate asthma guidance differing in some key aspects in diagnosis and management leading to confusion, potentially hampering guideline dissemination and uptake. While there are inherent challenges, the upcoming release of new joint BTS/SIGN/NICE asthma guidance presents an opportunity to assess guideline adoption and its impact on clinical practice. The use of prescription data via databases such as OpenPrescribing can be used as a surrogate for guideline adoption and potentially linked to clinical outcomes such as hospital episode statistics (HES). The potential recommendation for anti-inflammatory reliever therapy (AIR) and maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol combination therapy in the next iteration of UK asthma guidance will require the accurate coding for the respective therapeutic approaches on prescribing platforms in order to assess their impact in real-life clinical practice. This could then direct targeted measures to improve wider guidance adoption leading to better clinical care in asthma based on up to date evidence.

The concept of \"remission\" in asthma has been around for a long time and it has been a controversial topic. Despite the attempts of some studies to characterize this entity, the discussion continues. In the case of asthma there is still no clear definition, either in terms of its meaning or the parameters that should be included or whether it should be divided into clinical or complete remission. To help defining these controversial concepts, SEPAR has advocated the multidisciplinary working group REMAS (REMission in ASthma). Following the Delphi methodology and with the involvement of more than 120 specialists in asthma management, this group has arrived at a consensus on the definitions of remission in asthma and establishing the criteria and characteristics that will be of use in future studies evaluating the efficacy or effectiveness of treatments.

暂无摘要。

Asthma is the most common chronic respiratory disease in women of childbearing age and during pregnancy. This paper presents a summary of the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline on asthma and pregnancy. The aim of this guideline is to provide structured, where possible, evidence-based recommendations to optimize the management of asthma during pregnancy. The main topics covered in this guideline are preconception counseling, the safety of asthma medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding and risk assessment and monitoring of asthma during pregnancy. Because many caregivers are involved and a uniform approach is desirable, this guideline has been developed in collaboration with all relevant health care providers and patient representatives.

BACKGROUND: There is significant practice variation in acute paediatric asthma, particularly severe exacerbations. It is unknown whether this is due to differences in clinical guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the content and quality of clinical guidelines for the management of acute exacerbations of asthma in children between geographic regions.
METHODS: Observational study of guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma from institutions across a global collaboration of six regional paediatric emergency research networks.
RESULTS: 158 guidelines were identified. Half provided recommendations for at least two age groups, and most guidelines provided treatment recommendations according to asthma severity.There were consistent recommendations for the use of inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and systemic corticosteroids. Inhaled anticholinergic therapy was recommended in most guidelines for severe and critical asthma, but there were inconsistent recommendations for its use in mild and moderate exacerbations. Other inhaled therapies such as helium-oxygen mixture (Heliox) and nebulised magnesium were inconsistently recommended for severe and critical illness.Parenteral bronchodilator therapy and epinephrine were mostly reserved for severe and critical asthma, with intravenous magnesium most recommended. There were regional differences in the use of other parenteral bronchodilators, particularly aminophylline.Guideline quality assessment identified high ratings for clarity of presentation, scope and purpose, but low ratings for stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, applicability and editorial independence.
CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma exacerbations have substantial deficits in important quality domains and provide limited and inconsistent guidance for severe exacerbations.

A modified Delphi process was undertaken to provide a US expert-led consensus to guide clinical action on short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) use. This comprised an online survey (Phase 1), forum discussion and statement development (Phase 2), and statement adjudication (Phase 3).
In Phase 1 (n = 100 clinicians), 12% routinely provided patients with ≥4 SABA prescriptions/year, 73% solicited SABA use frequency at every patient visit, and 21% did not consult asthma guidelines/expert reports. Phase 3 experts (n = 8) reached consensus (median Likert score, interquartile range) that use of ≥3 SABA canisters/year is associated with increased risk of exacerbation and asthma-related death (5, 4.75-5); SABA use history should be solicited at every patient visit (5, 4.75-5); usage patterns over time, not absolute thresholds, should guide response to SABA overuse (5, 4.5-5). Future asthma guidelines should include clear recommendations regarding SABA usage, using expert-led thresholds for action.

暂无摘要。

Recent clinical trials of as-needed fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol have provided new evidence that may warrant a reconsideration of current practice. A Task Force was set up by the European Respiratory Society to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol as treatment for mild asthma. The Task Force defined two questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The Task Force utilised the outcomes to develop recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday clinical practice. The Task Force suggests that adults with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of regular ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed short-acting β2-antagonist (SABA) and that adolescents with mild asthma use either as-needed ICS/formoterol or ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed SABA (conditional recommendation; low certainty of evidence). The recommendation for adults places a relatively higher value on the reduction of systemic corticosteroid use and the outcomes related to exacerbations, and a relatively lower value on the small differences in asthma control. Either treatment option is suggested for adolescent patients as the balance is very close and data more limited. The Task Force recommends that adult and adolescent patients with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of as-needed SABA (strong recommendation; low certainty of evidence). This recommendation is based on the benefit of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma on several outcomes and the risks related to as-needed SABA in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. The implementation of this recommendation is hampered in countries (including European Union countries) where as-needed ICS/formoterol is not approved for mild asthma.

The article traces the concept of asthma control within GINA guidelines over the past 25 years. In the first 15 years after 1995, the main objective of asthma management was to obtain the control of all clinical and functional characteristics of asthma. A landmark study (GOAL) showed for the first time that a good control of asthma is a reasonable outcome that can be achieved in a large proportion of asthmatics with a regular appropriate treatment. In the following years, more emphasis was placed on the role of exacerbations as critical manifestations of poor asthma control, whose frequency is associated with excessive FEV1 decline and increased risk of death. Accordingly, the 2014 GINA report makes a clear distinction between the control of the day-by-day symptoms and the reduction in the risk of severe exacerbations, stating that both conditions should be obtained. The 2019 update included a significant change in the management of mild asthma, prioritizing the prevention of exacerbations to that of mild symptoms. This view was repeated in the 2021 update, where the prevention of exacerbations, together with an acceptable symptom control with a minimal use of rescue medication, appeared to be the real main goal of asthma management. While a discrepancy between current symptoms and exacerbations may be present in mild asthma, a significant relationship between these two features is observed in moderate-severe asthma: a persistent poor symptom control is a major risk factor for exacerbations, whereas achieving symptom control through regular treatment is associated with a reduction in exacerbation rate. Thus, the opinion that frequent symptoms are not important in the absence of acute exacerbations should be discouraged, whereas education of patients to a good symptom perception and to improve adherence to regular treatment should be implemented. Furthermore, the persistence of risk factors, such as increased airway inflammation, even in a patient with minor daily symptoms, should be considered for optimizing treatment.

While the twentieth century brought rapid changes to the diagnosis and management of asthma, consensus guidelines did not exist until the mid-1980s. Over the subsequent four decades, guidelines evolved from expert-based recommendations to comprehensive, evidenced-based references. The main two guidelines to be discussed in this chapter are the expert panel reports (EPR) published by the United States National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention Report (GINA) published by the NHLBI and World Health Organization (WHO). While these guidelines both focus on evidence-based approaches to the diagnosis and management of asthma, there are significant differences in both organization and recommendations. Just as the introduction of evidence-based guidelines was revolutionary to asthma management over the last 20 years, we anticipate further development of recommendations specific to precision medicine based on ongoing cutting-edge clinical research.