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。

BACKGROUND: Regardless of existence of National asthma guidelines, adherence to major elements of guidelines among providers is suboptimal. The nonadherence contributes to poor clinical outcomes and quality of life of asthma patients.
OBJECTIVE: This project aims to improve the standard of care of asthma patients with increased providers\' adherence to asthma guidelines through provider education, and implementation of practice guidelines and evidence-based resources.
METHODS: A pre-post implementation retrospective design was adopted along with the provision of provider education sessions and implementation of pediatric asthma management practice guidelines and asthma resources in the pediatric practice in Southern, New Jersey. Data were collected via retrospective chart review among 41 patients four-months pre-implementation and 38 patients three months post-implementation to assess the improvement of providers\' adherence to seven elements of asthma guidelines. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were computed to evaluate providers\' adherence.
RESULTS: Results showed improvement from pre- to post-implementation in utilization of six of the seven key elements of guidelines among providers that include, the assessment and documentation of asthma control (4.9% to 39.5%), medication adherence (20% to 87.5%), medication delivery technique (7.3% to 18.4%), environmental triggers (14.6% to 44.7%), asthma action plan (4.9% to 28.9%), and follow-up visits (48.8% to 76.3%). In addition, the chi-square test showed a significant association between environmental triggers assessment from baseline to post-implementation, χ2 (1, n = 79) = 4.29, p = .038.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing necessary resources and provider-focused education demonstrated a positive change in promoting best practice and facilitating providers\' adherence.

With the help of a routine clinical case, we highlighted the difference between two of the best asthma guidelines available at the time regarding therapeutic suggestions for the so-called \"third step\" for school-age asthmatic children. We have analyzed the scientific evidence that each of the two guidelines brings to support their position. Finally, we have motivatedly solved the clinical scenario. However, the question of disagreement between two guidelines remains unresolved. This can lead to unjustified differences in the management of schoolchildren with persistent asthma.

Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for asthma management that incorporate usual-care regimens could benefit from standardized application of evidence-based guidelines.
We sought to evaluate performance of a computerized decision support tool, the Asthma Control Evaluation and Treatment (ACET) Program, to standardize usual-care regimens for asthma management in RCTs.
Children and adolescents with persistent uncontrolled asthma living in urban census tracts were recruited into 3 multicenter RCTs (each with a usual-care arm) between 2004 and 2014. A computerized decision support tool scored asthma control and assigned an appropriate treatment step based on published guidelines. Control-level determinants (symptoms, rescue medication use, pulmonary function measure, and adherence estimates) were collected at visits and entered into the ACET Program. Changes in control levels and treatment steps were examined during the trials.
At screening, more than half of the participants were rated as having symptoms that were not controlled or poorly controlled. The proportion of participants who gained good control between screening and randomization increased significantly in all 3 trials. Between 51% and 70% had symptoms that were well controlled by randomization. The proportion of well-controlled participants remained constant or improved slightly from randomization until the last posttreatment visit. Nighttime symptoms were the most common control-level determinant; there were few (<1%) instances of complete overlap of factors. FEV1 was the driver of control-level assignment in 30% of determinations.
The ACET Program decision support tool facilitated standardized asthma assessment and treatment in multicenter RCTs and was associated with attaining and maintaining good asthma control in most participants.

The minimum controlling dose of treatment must be established in patients with asthma, but the outcome of step-down is unpredictable.
To identify factors associated with risk of control loss when stepping down asthma treatment and to develop a score to predict this risk.
A prospective, multicenter study including adults with well-controlled asthma was performed. Treatment was stepped up or stepped down over a 12-month period to maintain asthma control. We determined associations between clinical and functional variables and step-down failure. Finally, we derived a score to predict loss of control in 1 cohort and validated it in an independent cohort.
The derivation cohort consisted of 228 patients; 218 completed at least 1 step-down episode and a total of 495 step-down episodes were evaluated. A medical-record documented postbronchodilator spirometry result of <70% forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-3.43), current FEV1 < 80% (OR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.03-3.14), ≥1 severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.48-4.01), and Asthma Control Test score < 25 (OR = 2.30; 95% CI: 1.35-3.92) were independently associated with failure. The score showed an area under the curve of 0.690 (95% CI: 0.633-0.747; P < .05) in the derivation cohort and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.643-0.882; P < .001) in a validation cohort of 114 patients. A score <4.5 implies a low risk of failure (<20%), whereas a score >8 implies a high risk (>40%).
This score can facilitate the prediction of step-down failure before medication taper in patients with well-controlled asthma.

暂无摘要。

The 2007 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma provide evidence-based recommendations to improve asthma care. Limited national-level data are available about clinician agreement and adherence to these guidelines.
To assess clinician-reported adherence with specific guideline recommendations, as well as agreement with and self-efficacy to implement guidelines.
We analyzed 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians data for 1412 primary care clinicians and 233 asthma specialists about 4 cornerstone guideline domains: asthma control, patient education, environmental control, and pharmacologic treatment. Agreement and self-efficacy were measured using Likert scales; 2 overall indices of agreement and self-efficacy were compiled. Adherence was compared between primary care clinicians and asthma specialists. Logistic regression models assessed the association of agreement and self-efficacy indices with adherence.
Asthma specialists expressed stronger agreement, higher self-efficacy, and greater adherence with guideline recommendations than did primary care clinicians. Adherence was low among both groups for specific core recommendations, including written asthma action plan (30.6% and 16.4%, respectively; P < .001); home peak flow monitoring, (12.8% and 11.2%; P = .34); spirometry testing (44.7% and 10.8%; P < .001); and repeated assessment of inhaler technique (39.7% and 16.8%; P < .001). Among primary care clinicians, greater self-efficacy was associated with greater adherence. For specialists, self-efficacy was associated only with increased odds of spirometry testing. Guideline agreement was generally not associated with adherence.
Agreement with and adherence to asthma guidelines was higher for specialists than for primary care clinicians, but was low in both groups for several key recommendations. Self-efficacy was a good predictor of guideline adherence among primary care clinicians but not among specialists.

BACKGROUND: With the availability of high-quality asthma guidelines worldwide, one possible approach of developing a valid guideline, without re-working the evidence, already analysed by major guidelines, is the ADAPTE approach, as was used for the development of National Guidelines on asthma.
METHODS: The guidelines development group (GDG) covered a broad range of experts from medical specialities, primary care physicians and methodologists. The core group of the GDG searched the literature for asthma guidelines 2005 onward, and analysed the 11 best guidelines with AGREE-II to select three mother guidelines. Key clinical questions were formulated covering each step of the asthma management.
RESULTS: The selected mother guidelines are British Thoracic Society (BTS), GINA and GEMA 2015. Responses to the questions were formulated according to the evidence in the mother guidelines. Recommendations or suggestions were made for asthma treatment in Mexico by the core group, and adjusted during several rounds of a Delphi process, taking into account: 1. Evidence; 2. Safety; 3. Cost; 4. Patient preference - all these set against the background of the local reality. Here the detailed analysis of the evidence present in BTS/GINA/GEMA sections on prevention and diagnosis in paediatric asthma are presented for three age-groups: children with asthma ≤5 years, 6-11 years and ≥12 years.
CONCLUSIONS: For the prevention and diagnosis sections, applying the AGREE-II method is useful to develop a scientifically-sustained document, adjusted to the local reality per country, as is the Mexican Guideline on Asthma.

Cochrane Reviews summarise best evidence and should inform guidelines. We assessed the use of Cochrane Reviews in the UK guidelines for paediatric respiratory disease. We found 21 guidelines which made 1025 recommendations, of which 96 could be informed by a Cochrane Review. In 38/96 recommendations (40%), some or all of the relevant Cochrane Reviews were not cited. We linked recommendations to 140 Cochrane Reviews. In 37/140 (26%) cases, the guideline recommendation did not fully agree with the Cochrane Review. Guideline developers may fail to use Cochrane Reviews or may make recommendations which are not in line with best evidence.