Interactive education during summer camp for children with asthma improved adherence of self-management

Digital interventions to improve adherence to maintenance medication in asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic lung condition worldwide, affecting 334 million adults and children globally. Despite the availability of effective treatment, such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), adherence to maintenance medication remains suboptimal. Poor ICS adherence leads to increased asthma symptoms, exacerbations, hospitalisations, and healthcare utilisation. Importantly, suboptimal use of asthma medication is a key contributor to asthma deaths. The impact of digital interventions on adherence and asthma outcomes is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of digital interventions for improving adherence to maintenance treatments in asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 1 June 2020, with no restrictions on language of publication. A further search was run in October 2021, but studies were not fully incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster- and quasi-randomised trials of any duration in any setting, comparing a digital adherence intervention with a non-digital adherence intervention or usual care. We included adults and children with a clinical diagnosis of asthma, receiving maintenance treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures for data collection. We used GRADE to assess quantitative outcomes where data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and children with asthma (n = 15,207), of which eight are ongoing studies. Of the included studies, 30 contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. The total number of participants ranged from 18 to 8517 (median 339). Intervention length ranged from two to 104 weeks. Most studies (n = 29) reported adherence to maintenance medication as their primary outcome; other outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life were also commonly reported. Studies had low or unclear risk of selection bias but high risk of performance and detection biases due to inability to blind the participants, personnel, or outcome assessors. A quarter of the studies had high risk of attrition bias and selective outcome reporting. We examined the effect of digital interventions using meta-analysis for the following outcomes: adherence (16 studies); asthma control (16 studies); asthma exacerbations (six studies); unscheduled healthcare utilisation (four studies); lung function (seven studies); and quality of life (10 studies). Pooled results showed that patients receiving digital interventions may have increased adherence (mean difference of 14.66 percentage points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.74 to 21.57; low-certainty evidence); this is likely to be clinically significant in those with poor baseline medication adherence. Subgroup analysis by type of intervention was significant (P = 0.001), with better adherence shown with electronic monitoring devices (EMDs) (23 percentage points over control, 95% CI 10.84 to 34.16; seven studies), and with short message services (SMS) (12 percentage points over control, 95% CI 6.22 to 18.03; four studies). No significant subgroup differences were seen for interventions having an in-person component versus fully digital interventions, adherence feedback, one or multiple digital components to the intervention, or participant age. Digital interventions were likely to improve asthma control (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31 higher, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) - a small but likely clinically significant effect. They may reduce asthma exacerbations (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.91; low-certainty evidence). Digital interventions may result in a slight change in unscheduled healthcare utilisation, although some studies reported no or a worsened effect. School or work absence data could not be included for meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity in reporting and the low number of studies. They may result in little or no difference in lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁)): there was an improvement of 3.58% predicted FEV₁, 95% CI 1.00% to 6.17%; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this is unlikely to be clinically significant as the FEV₁ change is below 12%. Digital interventions likely increase quality of life (SMD 0.26 higher, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.45; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this is a small effect that may not be clinically significant. Acceptability data showed positive attitudes towards digital interventions. There were no data on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. Our confidence in the evidence was reduced by risk of bias and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, digital interventions may result in a large increase in adherence (low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence that digital adherence interventions likely improve asthma control to a degree that is clinically significant, and likely increase quality of life, but there is little or no improvement in lung function. The review found low-certainty evidence that digital interventions may reduce asthma exacerbations. Subgroup analyses show that EMDs may improve adherence by 23% and SMS interventions by 12%, and interventions with an in-person element and adherence feedback may have greater benefits for asthma control and adherence, respectively. Future studies should include percentage adherence as a routine outcome measure to enable comparison between studies and meta-analysis, and use validated questionnaires to assess adherence and outcomes.

Home telemonitoring and remote feedback between clinic visits for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic disease that causes reversible narrowing of the airways due to bronchoconstriction, inflammation and mucus production. Asthma continues to be associated with significant avoidable morbidity and mortality. Self management facilitated by a healthcare professional is important to keep symptoms controlled and to prevent exacerbations.Telephone and Internet technologies can now be used by patients to measure lung function and asthma symptoms at home. Patients can then share this information electronically with their healthcare provider, who can provide feedback between clinic visits. Technology can be used in this manner to improve health outcomes and prevent the need for emergency treatment for people with asthma and other long-term health conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of home telemonitoring with healthcare professional feedback between clinic visits, compared with usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to May 2016. We also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with asthma in which any form of technology was used to measure and share asthma monitoring data with a healthcare provider between clinic visits, compared with other monitoring or usual care. We excluded trials in which technologies were used for monitoring with no input from a doctor or nurse. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the search and independently extracted risk of bias and numerical data, resolving disagreements by consensus.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) while using study participants as the unit of analysis, and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) while using random-effects models. We rated evidence for all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 18 studies including 2268 participants: 12 in adults, 5 in children and one in individuals from both age groups. Studies generally recruited people with mild to moderate persistent asthma and followed them for between three and 12 months. People in the intervention group were given one of a variety of technologies to record and share their symptoms (text messaging, Web systems or phone calls), compared with a group of people who received usual care or a control intervention.Evidence from these studies did not show clearly whether asthma telemonitoring with feedback from a healthcare professional increases or decreases the odds of exacerbations that require a course of oral steroids (OR 0.93, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.44; 466 participants; four studies), a visit to the emergency department (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 1018 participants; eight studies) or a stay in hospital (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.49; 1042 participants; 10 studies) compared with usual care. Our confidence was limited by imprecision in all three primary outcomes. Evidence quality ratings ranged from moderate to very low. None of the studies recorded serious or non-serious adverse events separately from asthma exacerbations.Evidence for measures of asthma control was imprecise and inconsistent, revealing possible benefit over usual care for quality of life (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; 796 participants; six studies; I(2) = 54%), but the effect was small and study results varied. Telemonitoring interventions may provide additional benefit for two measures of lung function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not support the widespread implementation of telemonitoring with healthcare provider feedback between asthma clinic visits. Studies have not yet proven that additional telemonitoring strategies lead to better symptom control or reduced need for oral steroids over usual asthma care, nor have they ruled out unintended harms. Investigators noted small benefits for quality of life, but these are subject to risk of bias, as the studies were unblinded. Similarly, some benefits for lung function are uncertain owing to possible attrition bias.Larger pragmatic studies in children and adults could better determine the real-world benefits of these interventions for preventing exacerbations and avoiding harms; it is difficult to generalise results from this review because benefits may be explained at least in part by the increased attention participants receive by taking part in clinical trials. Qualitative studies could inform future research by focusing on patient and provider preferences, or by identifying subgroups of patients who are more likely to attain benefit from closer monitoring, such as those who have frequent asthma attacks.

Remote versus face-to-face check-ups for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma remains a significant cause of avoidable morbidity and mortality. Regular check-ups with a healthcare professional are essential to monitor symptoms and adjust medication.Health services worldwide are considering telephone and internet technologies as a way to manage the rising number of people with asthma and other long-term health conditions. This may serve to improve health and reduce the burden on emergency and inpatient services. Remote check-ups may represent an unobtrusive and efficient way of maintaining contact with patients, but it is uncertain whether conducting check-ups in this way is effective or whether it may have unexpected negative consequences.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of conducting asthma check-ups remotely versus usual face-to-face consultations.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to 24 November 2015. We also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, reference lists of other reviews and contacted trial authors for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with asthma that compared remote check-ups conducted using any form of technology versus standard face-to-face consultations. We excluded studies that used automated telehealth interventions that did not include personalised contact with a health professional. We included studies reported as full-text articles, as abstracts only and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the literature search results and independently extracted risk of bias and numerical data. We resolved any disagreements by consensus, and we contacted study authors for missing information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis, and continuous data as mean differences using the random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies including a total of 2100 participants met the inclusion criteria: we pooled four studies including 792 people in the main efficacy analyses, and presented the results of a cluster implementation study (n = 1213) and an oral steroid tapering study (n = 95) separately. Baseline characteristics relating to asthma severity were variable, but studies generally recruited people with asthma taking regular medications and excluded those with COPD or severe asthma. One study compared the two types of check-up for oral steroid tapering in severe refractory asthma and we assessed it as a separate question. The studies could not be blinded and dropout was high in four of the six studies, which may have biased the results.We could not say whether more people who had a remote check-up needed oral corticosteroids for an asthma exacerbation than those who were seen face-to-face because the confidence intervals (CIs) were very wide (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.44; 278 participants; one study; low quality evidence). In the face-to-face check-up groups, 21 participants out of 1000 had exacerbations that required oral steroids over three months, compared to 36 (95% CI nine to 139) out of 1000 for the remote check-up group. Exacerbations that needed treatment in the Emergency Department (ED), hospital admission or an unscheduled healthcare visit all happened too infrequently to detect whether remote check-ups are a safe alternative to face-to-face consultations. Serious adverse events were not reported separately from the exacerbation outcomes.There was no difference in asthma control measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) or in quality of life measured on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) between remote and face-to-face check-ups. We could rule out significant harm of remote check-ups for these outcomes but we were less confident because these outcomes are more prone to bias from lack of blinding.The larger implementation study that compared two general practice populations demonstrated that offering telephone check-ups and proactively phoning participants increased the number of people with asthma who received a review. However, we do not know whether the additional participants who had a telephone check-up subsequently benefited in asthma outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current randomised evidence does not demonstrate any important differences between face-to-face and remote asthma check-ups in terms of exacerbations, asthma control or quality of life. There is insufficient information to rule out differences in efficacy, or to say whether or not remote asthma check-ups are a safe alternative to being seen face-to-face.

Interventions for educating children who are at risk of asthma-related emergency department attendance

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic childhood illness and is a leading cause for paediatric admission to hospital. Asthma management for children results in substantial costs. There is evidence to suggest that hospital admissions could be reduced with effective education for parents and children about asthma and its management.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of the literature and update the previous review as to whether asthma education leads to improved health outcomes in children who have attended the emergency room for asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register, including the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases, and reference lists of trials and review articles (last search May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of asthma education for children who had attended the emergency department for asthma, with or without hospitalisation, within the previous 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled dichotomous data with a fixed-effect risk ratio. We used a random-effects risk ratio for sensitivity analysis of heterogenous data.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 38 studies involving 7843 children were included. Following educational intervention delivered to children, their parents or both, there was a significantly reduced risk of subsequent emergency department visits (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81, N = 3008) and hospital admissions (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92, N = 4019) compared with control. There were also fewer unscheduled doctor visits (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.81, N = 1009). Very few data were available for other outcomes (FEV1, PEF, rescue medication use, quality of life or symptoms) and there was no statistically significant difference between education and control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Asthma education aimed at children and their carers who present to the emergency department for acute exacerbations can result in lower risk of future emergency department presentation and hospital admission. There remains uncertainty as to the long-term effect of education on other markers of asthma morbidity such as quality of life, symptoms and lung function. It remains unclear as to what type, duration and intensity of educational packages are the most effective in reducing acute care utilisation.