The most recent recommendations from the 2020 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Update and Global Initiative for Asthma 2021 guide evidence-based clinical decision making. However, given the present state of health disparities by age, income, and race, the equitable implementation and dissemination of these guidelines will be unlikely without further guidance. This work group report reviews the current state of the new asthma guideline implementation; presents updated evidence-based therapeutic options with attention to specific patient populations; and addresses barriers to the implementation of these guidelines in minoritized, historically marginalized, and underresourced communities. Allergists and immunologists can use practical ways to accomplish the goals of improved asthma care access and advanced asthma care across the life span, with specific considerations to historically marginalized populations. Modifiable barriers to guideline implementation include financial barriers, environmental factors, and allergy subspecialty access and care coordination. Various programs to improve access to guideline-based asthma care include community programs, school-based asthma programs, and digital health solutions, with an emphasis on reducing disparities by race.

暂无摘要。

Little is known about specialist-specific variations in guideline agreement and adoption.
To assess similarities and differences between allergists and pulmonologists in adherence to cornerstone components of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program\'s Third Expert Panel Report.
Self-reported guideline agreement, self-efficacy, and adherence were assessed in allergists (n = 134) and pulmonologists (n = 99) in the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians. Multivariate models were used to assess if physician and practice characteristics explained bivariate associations between specialty and \"almost always\" adhering to recommendations (ie, ≥75% of the time).
Allergists and pulmonologists reported high guideline self-efficacy and moderate guideline agreement. Both groups \"almost always\" assessed asthma control (66.2%, standard error [SE] 4.3), assessed school/work asthma triggers (71.3%, SE, 3.9), and endorsed inhaled corticosteroids use (95.5%, SE 2.0). Repeated assessment of the inhaler technique, use of asthma action/treatment plans, and spirometry were lower (39.7%, SE 4.0; 30.6%, SE 3.6; 44.7%, SE 4.1, respectively). Compared with pulmonologists, more allergists almost always performed spirometry (56.6% vs 38.6%, P = .06), asked about nighttime awakening (91.9% vs 76.5%, P = .03) and emergency department visits (92.2% vs 76.5%, P = .03), assessed home triggers (70.5% vs 52.6%, P = .06), and performed allergy testing (61.8% vs 21.3%, P < .001). In multivariate analyses, practice-specific characteristics explained differences except for allergy testing.
Overall, allergists and pulmonologists adhere to the asthma guidelines with notable exceptions, including asthma action plan use and inhaler technique assessment. Recommendations with low implementation offer opportunities for further exploration and could serve as targets for increasing guideline uptake.

Asthma has substantial impact on the patient, their family and health systems, and its control has gained increasing attention. Perception of asthma control has varied widely among patients as well as healthcare providers. Several clinical markers have been developed to define and standardize the measurement of asthma control. They are based primarily on patients\' symptoms and have been popular in clinical practice and in clinical studies. With the advances in basic research on the pathology of asthma, several biological markers have evolved that have the advantages of being objective, quantitative and more reflective of the underlying pathology, which makes them a better guide for selecting optimal therapy. In addition to the cost and expertise required, biological makers are influenced by multiple factors that limit their application in clinical practice. Ongoing research is expected to define the role of individual biological markers, the optimal method of their application, and their appropriate interpretation.

BACKGROUND: In this study, our goal is to evaluate the consistency between TRACK and the asthma control levels assessed according to the GINA and NAEPP guidelines in children younger than 5 years of age.
METHODS: Patients under 5 years old, who were followed up for recurrent wheezing for at least 1 year have been included. Parents were given the TRACK questionnaire and the control level of asthma according to GINA and NAEPP guidelines were determined by a pediatric allergist blinded to TRACK scores. Patients were classified into two groups regarding the compatibility of the control level between TRACK and both GINA and NAEPP guidelines.
RESULTS: A total of 365 questionnaires were evaluated. The TRACK cut-off point of 80 provided the most consistent balance between sensitivity and specificity for the compatibility with both GINA and NAEPP (for GINA 0.763 and 0.663, kappa = 0.487, p < 0.001 and for NAEPP 0.761 and 0.769, kappa = 0.524, p < 0.001, respectively). When 80 was taken as the cut-off value for TRACK, the compatibility rate of asthma control levels between TRACK and GINA and TRACK and NAEPP was 71.0 and 76.4%, respectively. About 70.1% of the patients who had TRACK scores over 80 and had mild asthma were grouped as controlled according to GINA and 50.0% of patients who had TRACK scores over 80 and had moderate to severe asthma was grouped as uncontrolled according to GINA (p = 0.019).
CONCLUSIONS: TRACK is compatible with NAEPP and GINA in majority of asthmatic children under 5 years of age. Nevertheless, there is a discrepancy between guidelines and TRACK scores; therefore, it should be used in conjunction with a detailed clinical examination in order to make a better decision for assessing the control levels and management plan.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) has previously been shown to improve asthma control out to 2 years in patients with severe persistent asthma.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of BT in asthmatic patients 5 years after therapy.
METHODS: BT-treated subjects from the Asthma Intervention Research 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.govNCT01350414) were evaluated annually for 5 years to assess the long-term safety of BT and the durability of its treatment effect. Outcomes assessed after BT included severe exacerbations, adverse events, health care use, spirometric data, and high-resolution computed tomographic scans.
RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two (85.3%) of 190 BT-treated subjects from the Asthma Intervention Research 2 trial completed 5 years of follow-up. The proportion of subjects experiencing severe exacerbations and emergency department (ED) visits and the rates of events in each of years 1 to 5 remained low and were less than those observed in the 12 months before BT treatment (average 5-year reduction in proportions: 44% for exacerbations and 78% for ED visits). Respiratory adverse events and respiratory-related hospitalizations remained unchanged in years 2 through 5 compared with the first year after BT. Prebronchodilator FEV₁ values remained stable between years 1 and 5 after BT, despite a 18% reduction in average daily inhaled corticosteroid dose. High-resolution computed tomographic scans from baseline to 5 years after BT showed no structural abnormalities that could be attributed to BT.
CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the 5-year durability of the benefits of BT with regard to both asthma control (based on maintained reduction in severe exacerbations and ED visits for respiratory symptoms) and safety. BT has become an important addition to our treatment armamentarium and should be considered for patients with severe persistent asthma who remain symptomatic despite taking inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β₂-agonists.