57
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Can asthma control be improved by understanding the patient's perspective?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Clinical trials show that asthma can be controlled in the majority of patients, but poorly controlled asthma still imposes a considerable burden. The level of asthma control achieved reflects the behaviour of both healthcare professionals and patients. A key challenge for healthcare professionals is to help patients to engage in self-management behaviours with optimal adherence to appropriate treatment. These issues are particularly relevant in primary care, where most asthma is managed. An international panel of experts invited by the International Primary Care Respiratory Group considered the evidence and discussed the implications for primary care practice.

          Discussion

          Causes of poor control

          Clinical factors such as exposure to triggers and concomitant rhinitis are important but so are patient behavioural factors. Behaviours such as smoking and nonadherence may reduce the efficacy of treatment and patients' perceptions influence these behaviours. Perceptual barriers to adherence include doubting the need for treatment when symptoms are absent and concerns about potential adverse effects. Under-treatment may also be related to patients' underestimation of the significance of symptoms, and lack of awareness of achievable control.

          Implications

          Three key implications for healthcare professionals emerged from the debate. First, the need for simple tools to assess asthma control. Two approaches considered were the monitoring of biometric markers of control and questionnaires to record patient-reported outcomes. Second, to understand the reasons for poor control for individual patients, identifying both clinical (e.g. rhinitis) and behavioural factors (e.g. smoking and nonadherence to treatment). Third was the need to incorporate, within asthma review, an assessment of patient perspectives including their goals and aspirations and to elicit their beliefs and concerns about asthma and its treatment. This can be used as a basis for agreement between the healthcare professional and patient on a predefined target regarding asthma control and a treatment plan to achieve this.

          Summary

          Optimum review of asthma is essential to improve control. A key priority is the development of simple and effective tools for identifying poor control for individual patients coupled with a tailored approach to treatment to enable patients to set and achieve realistic goals for asthma control.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Asthma exacerbations and sputum eosinophil counts: a randomised controlled trial.

          Treatment decisions in asthma are based on assessments of symptoms and simple measures of lung function, which do not relate closely to underlying eosinophilic airway inflammation. We aimed to assess whether a management strategy that minimises eosinophilic inflammation reduces asthma exacerbations compared with a standard management strategy. We recruited 74 patients with moderate to severe asthma from hospital clinics and randomly allocated them to management either by standard British Thoracic Society asthma guidelines (BTS management group) or by normalisation of the induced sputum eosinophil count and reduction of symptoms (sputum management group). We assessed patients nine times over 12 months. The results were used to manage those in the sputum management group, but were not disclosed in the BTS group. The primary outcomes were the number of severe exacerbations and control of eosinophilic inflammation, measured by induced sputum eosinophil count. Analyses were by intention to treat. The sputum eosinophil count was 63% (95% CI 24-100) lower over 12 months in the sputum management group than in the BTS management group (p=0.002). Patients in the sputum management group had significantly fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did patients in the BTS management group (35 vs 109; p=0.01) and significantly fewer patients were admitted to hospital with asthma (one vs six, p=0.047). The average daily dose of inhaled or oral corticosteroids did not differ between the two groups. A treatment strategy directed at normalisation of the induced sputum eosinophil count reduces asthma exacerbations and admissions without the need for additional anti-inflammatory treatment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Can guideline-defined asthma control be achieved? The Gaining Optimal Asthma ControL study.

            For most patients, asthma is not controlled as defined by guidelines; whether this is achievable has not been prospectively studied. A 1-year, randomized, stratified, double-blind, parallel-group study of 3,421 patients with uncontrolled asthma compared fluticasone propionate and salmeterol/fluticasone in achieving two rigorous, composite, guideline-based measures of control: totally and well-controlled asthma. Treatment was stepped-up until total control was achieved (or maximum 500 microg corticosteroid twice a day). Significantly more patients in each stratum (previously corticosteroid-free, low- and moderate-dose corticosteroid users) achieved control with salmeterol/fluticasone than fluticasone. Total control was achieved across all strata: 520 (31%) versus 326 (19%) patients after dose escalation (p < 0.001) and 690 (41%) versus 468 (28%) at 1 year for salmeterol/fluticasone and fluticasone, respectively. Asthma became well controlled in 1,071 (63%) versus 846 (50%) after dose escalation (p < 0.001) and 1,204 (71%) versus 988 (59%) at 1 year. Control was achieved more rapidly and at a lower corticosteroid dose with salmeterol/fluticasone versus fluticasone. Across all strata, 68% and 76% of the patients receiving salmeterol/fluticasone and fluticasone, respectively, were on the highest dose at the end of treatment. Exacerbation rates (0.07-0.27 per patient per year) and improvement in health status were significantly better with salmeterol/fluticasone. This study confirms that the goal of guideline-derived asthma control was achieved in a majority of the patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure asthma control.

              International guidelines on asthma management indicate that the primary goal of treatment should be optimum asthma control. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). The authors generated a list of all symptoms used to assess control and sent it to 100 asthma clinicians who were members of guidelines committees (18 countries). They scored each symptom for its importance in evaluating asthma control. From the 91 responses, the five highest scoring symptoms were selected for the ACQ. In addition, there is one question on beta2-agonist use and another on airway calibre (total questions=7). The ACQ was tested in a 9-week observational study of 50 adults with symptomatic asthma. The ACQ and other measures of asthma health status were assessed at baseline, 1, 5 and 9 weeks. In patients whose asthma was stable between clinic visits, reliability of the ACQ was high (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.90). The questionnaire was very responsive to change in asthma control (p<0.0001). Cross-sectional and longitudinal validity were supported by correlations between the ACQ and other measures of asthma health status being close to a priori predictions. In conclusion, the Asthma Control Questionnaire has strong evaluative and discriminative properties and can be used with confidence to measure asthma control.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Pulm Med
                BMC Pulmonary Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2466
                2007
                22 May 2007
                : 7
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Professor of Behavioural Medicine, Centre for Behavioural Medicine, School of Pharmacy University of London, UK
                [2 ]General Practitioner, Norwich, UK; Professor, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
                [3 ]Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
                [4 ]General Practitioner, Porto, Portugal
                [5 ]Chief Executive, Asthma UK, London, UK
                [6 ]General Practitioner, Box, UK; School for Health, University of Bath, UK
                [7 ]General Practitioner, Glasgow, UK; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
                [8 ]General Practitioner, Oslo, Norway
                [9 ]General Practitioner, Richmond Hill, Canada; Emergency Department, York Central Hospital, Richmond Hill, Canada
                [10 ]General Practitioner, Steinkjer, Norway; HUNT Research Centre, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Verdal, Norway
                [11 ]General Practitioner, Oslo, Norway
                [12 ]General Practitioner, Minchinhampton, UK; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
                [13 ]Professor, Department of General Practice University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
                [14 ]Professor, Clinic for Internal Medicine, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
                [15 ]Executive Officer, International Primary Care Respiratory Group, London, UK
                Article
                1471-2466-7-8
                10.1186/1471-2466-7-8
                1894634
                17518999
                cb99683c-347a-4153-9269-0e8ac854c4c1
                Copyright © 2007 Horne et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 November 2006
                : 22 May 2007
                Categories
                Debate

                Respiratory medicine
                Respiratory medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article