Evidence-based guideline on the primary care management of asthma

Comparison and review of international guidelines for treating asthma in children

Asthma, the most common chronic disease, is characterized by airway inflammation and airflow obstruction. The World Health Organization estimates that approximately 300 million people worldwide have asthma, 30% of whom are pediatric patients. Asthma is a major cause of morbidity that can lead to hospitalization or death in severe pediatric cases. Therefore, it is necessary to provide children with objective and reliable treatment according to consistent guidelines. Several institutes, such as the Global Institute for Asthma, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, British Thoracic Society, Japanese Society of Pediatric Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Clinical Immunology have published and revised asthma guidelines. However, since recommendations differ among them, confusion persists regarding drug therapy for pediatric asthma patients. Additionally, some guidelines have changed significantly in recent years. This review investigated the latest changes in each guideline, compared and analyzed the recommendations, and identified the international trends in pediatric asthma drug therapy. The findings of this review may aid determinations of the future direction of the Korean guidelines for childhood asthma.

Tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers to promote the uptake of their guidelines

BACKGROUND

The uptake of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is inconsistent, despite their potential to improve the quality of health care and patient outcomes. Some guideline producers have addressed this problem by developing tools to encourage faster adoption of new guidelines. This review focuses on the effectiveness of tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers to improve the uptake of their CPGs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of implementation tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers, which accompany or follow the publication of a CPG, to promote uptake. A secondary objective is to determine which approaches to guideline implementation are most effective.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); NHS Economic Evaluation Database, HTA Database; MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process and other non-indexed citations; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Dissertations and Theses, ProQuest; Index to Theses; Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Web of Knowledge; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, ISI Web of Knowledge; Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and NHS Evidence up to February 2016. We also searched trials registers, reference lists of included studies and relevant websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies evaluating the effects of guideline implementation tools developed by recognised guideline producers to improve the uptake of their own guidelines. The guideline could target any clinical area.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' criteria. We graded our confidence in the evidence using the approach recommended by the GRADE working group. The clinical conditions targeted and the implementation tools used were too heterogenous to combine data for meta-analysis. We report the median absolute risk difference (ARD) and interquartile range (IQR) for the main outcome of adherence to guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four cluster-RCTs that were conducted in the Netherlands, France, the USA and Canada. These studies evaluated the effects of tools developed by national guideline producers to implement their CPGs. The implementation tools evaluated targeted healthcare professionals; none targeted healthcare organisations or patients.One study used two short educational workshops tailored to barriers. In three studies the intervention consisted of the provision of paper-based educational materials, order forms or reminders, or both. The clinical condition, type of healthcare professional, and behaviour targeted by the CPG varied across studies.Two of the four included studies reported data on healthcare professionals' adherence to guidelines. A guideline tool developed by the producers of a guideline probably leads to increased adherence to the guidelines; median ARD (IQR) was 0.135 (0.115 and 0.159 for the two studies respectively) at an average four-week follow-up (moderate certainty evidence), which indicates a median 13.5% greater adherence to guidelines in the intervention group. Providing healthcare professionals with a tool to improve implementation of a guideline may lead to little or no difference in costs to the health service.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implementation tools developed by recognised guideline producers probably lead to improved healthcare professionals' adherence to guidelines in the management of non-specific low back pain and ordering thyroid-function tests. There are limited data on the relative costs of implementing these interventions.There are no studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions targeting the organisation of care (e.g. benchmarking tools, costing templates, etc.), or for mass media interventions. We could not draw any conclusions about our second objective, the comparative effectiveness of implementation tools, due to the small number of studies, the heterogeneity between interventions, and the clinical conditions that were targeted.

Quality assessment of asthma clinical practice guidelines: a systematic appraisal

BACKGROUND

The quality and potential impact of available clinical guidelines for asthma management have not been systematically evaluated. We, therefore, evaluated the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for asthma.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of scientific literature published between 2000 and 2010 to identify and select CPGs related to asthma management. We searched guideline databases, guideline developers' websites, and the MEDLINE database of the US National Library of Medicine. Four independent reviewers assessed the eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. We calculated the overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Eighteen CPGs published between the years 2000 and 2010 were selected from a total of 1,005 references. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (ICC: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90). The mean scores for each AGREE domain were: scope and purpose, 44.1% (range: 10.0%-79.0%); stakeholder involvement, 33.8% (range: 4.0%-66.0%); rigor of development, 32.4% (range: 8.0%-64.0%); clarity and presentation, 52.1% (range: 17.0%-85.0%); applicability, 21.1% (range: 3%-55%); and editorial independence, 25% (range: 0%-58%). None of the appraised guidelines had a score > 60% (recommended). One-half of the appraised guidelines were recommended with modifications (nine of 18) or not recommended (nine of 18) for use in clinical practice. We observed improvement over time in overall quality of the guidelines (P = .01; guidelines published in the period 2001-2006 vs 2007-2009).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of guidelines for asthma care is low, although it has improved over time. Greater efforts are needed to provide high-quality guidelines that can be used as reliable tools for clinical decision-making in this field.

Building theories of knowledge translation interventions: use the entire menu of constructs

Background

In the ongoing effort to develop and advance the science of knowledge translation (KT), an important question has emerged around how theory should inform the development of KT interventions.

Discussion

Efforts to employ theory to better understand and improve KT interventions have until recently mostly involved examining whether existing theories can be usefully applied to the KT context in question. In contrast to this general theory application approach, we propose a ‘menu of constructs’ approach, where individual constructs from any number of theories may be used to construct a new theory. By considering the entire menu of available constructs, rather than limiting choice to the broader level of theories, we can leverage knowledge from theories that would never on their own provide a complete picture of a KT intervention, but that nevertheless describe components or mechanisms relevant to it. We can also avoid being forced to adopt every construct from a particular theory in a one-size-fits-all manner, and instead tailor theory application efforts to the specifics of the situation. Using audit and feedback as an example KT intervention strategy, we describe a variety of constructs (two modes of reasoning, cognitive dissonance, feed forward, desirable difficulties and cognitive load, communities of practice, and adaptive expertise) from cognitive and educational psychology that make concrete suggestions about ways to improve this class of intervention.

Summary

The ‘menu of constructs’ notion suggests an approach whereby a wider range of theoretical constructs, including constructs from cognitive theories with scope that makes the immediate application to the new context challenging, may be employed to facilitate development of more effective KT interventions.

Patients' evaluation of the appropriateness of their hypertension management--a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The existing appropriateness measures for prescribing used in the United States and the United Kingdom use clinical attributes. Treatment and care from a patient's perspective need to be evaluated in terms of whether they are more likely to lead to an outcome of a life worth living, in social, psychological, and physical terms. However, it is unclear whether patients specifically evaluate their prescribed medication and treatment. If so, do they use only clinical attributes or a combination of clinical and nonclinical attributes?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore if patients evaluated their hypertension management, and if they did, investigate what attributes were involved in the evaluation.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews, which focused on personal experiences of hypertension and its management were undertaken with patients (n=28). The aim of the interviews was to obtain, in a narrative format, the experiences, beliefs, and information that patients considered important when discussing the management of hypertension. Data analysis used a constant comparative method.

RESULTS

All patients considered their hypertension management regimen appropriate, but were able to mention only 2 categories of attributes to justify their decision (the relationship with their General Practitioner and lowering of their blood pressure). Further series attributes were mentioned by the patient during the course of their interview; these attributes were considered to be involved in their evaluation. These implicit attributes were categorized as anxieties and concerns regarding treatment and diagnosis, explanation of the consequences of treatment, choice of antihypertensives, and the side effects experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient's evaluation of appropriateness was constructed from both explicit and implicit attributes. Implicit attributes, those not consciously known to the patient still, could be involved in the process of evaluating hypertension, its treatment, and care. Although the nonmedical attributes that are considered by patients can be categorized, it has to be remembered that it is the inherent meaning held by each individual patient involved when an evaluation is made.

Inhaled ciclesonide versus inhaled budesonide or inhaled beclomethasone or inhaled fluticasone for chronic asthma in adults: a systematic review

Background

Ciclesonide is a new inhaled corticosteroids licensed for the prophylactic treatment of persistent asthma in adults. Currently beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide and fluticasone propionate are the most commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma but there has been no systematic review comparing the effectiveness and safety ciclesonide to these agents. We therefore aimed to systematically review published randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness and safety of ciclesonide compared to alternative inhaled corticosteroids in people with asthma.

Methods

We performed literature searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, the COCHRANE LIBRARY and various Internet evidence sources for randomised controlled trials or systematic reviews comparing ciclesonide to beclomethasone or budesonide or fluticasone in adult humans with persistent asthma. Data was extracted by one reviewer.

Results

Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable. There were no trials comparing ciclesonide to beclomethasone. There was no significant difference between ciclesonide and budesonide or fluticasone on the following outcomes: lung function, symptoms, quality of life, airway responsiveness to a provoking agent or inflammatory markers. However, the trials were very small in size, increasing the possibility of a type II error. One trial demonstrated that the combined deposition of ciclesonide (and its active metabolite) in the oropharynx was 47% of that of budesonide while another trial demonstrated that the combined deposition of ciclesonide (and its active metabolite) in the oropharynx was 53% of that of fluticasone. One trial demonstrated less suppression of cortisol in overnight urine collection after ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (geometric mean fold difference = 1.5, P < 0.05) but no significant difference in plasma cortisol response.

Conclusion

There is very little evidence comparing CIC to other ICS, restricted to very small, phase II studies of low power. These demonstrate CIC has similar effectiveness and efficacy to FP and BUD (though equivalence is not certain) and findings regarding oral deposition and HPA suppression are inconclusive. There is no direct comparative evidence that CIC causes fewer side effects since none of the studies reported patient-based outcomes.

Individual patient's preferences for hypertension management: a Q-methodological approach

OBJECTIVE

To systematically explore and elicit individual patient's preferences in the management of their hypertension using Q-methodology.

METHODS

Using Q-methodology, 120 patients ranking 42 statements according to their agreement or disagreement when considering appropriate hypertension management. The statements were derived from an earlier qualitative study. Factor analysis of the data was undertaken using PQMethod software to determine if any patterns were discernible.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients clustered to five factors, which all varied in the degree of involvement patients had, or wished to have, in their hypertension management. The 42 patients who loaded to factor 1 considered that appropriate antihypertensive treatment involved leaving medical decisions to their GPs and trusting their judgement in such matters. The patients (n = 31) who positively loaded to factor 2 suggested that an autonomous relationship with their healthcare professional(s) was an important issue when considering treatment.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that this study has successfully used Q-methodology to systematically investigate people's subjectivity and developed a novel approach to elicit the views of individual patients, as well as explore and differentiate between groups of patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The formation of true partnerships between patients and healthcare professionals which will enhance individual patients' ability to self-manage chronic disease.

Use of beta2 agonists in sport: are the present criteria right?

BACKGROUND

The regulations for doping control prohibit the use of beta2 agonist bronchodilators (salbutamol, salmeterol, formoterol, and terbutaline) unless the subject follows the procedure known as abbreviated therapeutic use exemption (ATUE).

OBJECTIVE

To highlight how the interest in discovering possible cheats may result in damage to athletes who really need bronchodilator treatment.

METHODS

Thirty one high level athletes (18 men and 13 women) with a previous diagnosis of asthma were examined in our laboratory in order to obtain an ATUE for beta2 agonists. All the subjects underwent spirometry at rest. If the results were normal, the subjects underwent an effort test and, if negative, a methacholine test inhaling progressive doses of methacholine until a fall of 20% in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was achieved. The international anti-doping regulations require that the fall in FEV1 occurs with a concentration of methacholine (PC20) lower than 2 mg/ml (4 mg/ml for Torino 2006). In clinical practice, a test is positive if the response occurs with a PC20 lower than 8 mg/ml.

RESULTS

Only one subject met the criterion for the bronchodilation test at rest. The remaining 30 athletes underwent an effort test, which was positive in nine of them. In 21 cases (13 men and 8 women) the effort test was negative so a methacholine test was carried out. Seven (33%) were negative for ATUE with a PC20 higher than 8 mg/ml, seven (33%) were positive for ATUE with a PC20 less than 2 mg/ml, in four (19%) the PC20 was 2-4 mg/ml, and in three (14%) it was 4-8 mg/ml.

CONCLUSIONS

Strict vigilance of fair play should be pursued, but excessive control can lead to situations of inequality for asthmatic athletes such that a third of athletes cannot be treated with beta2 agonists. Therefore under current regulations, asthmatic athletes are often denied the most effective therapeutic option.

Practice based, longitudinal, qualitative interview study of computerised evidence based guidelines in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To understand the factors influencing the adoption of a computerised clinical decision support system for two chronic diseases in general practice.

DESIGN

Practice based, longitudinal, qualitative interview study.

SETTING

Five general practices in north east England.

PARTICIPANTS

13 respondents (two practice managers, three nurses, and eight general practitioners) gave a total of 19 semistructured interviews. 40 people in practices included in the randomised controlled trial (34 doctors, three nurses) and interview study (three doctors, one previously interviewed) gave feedback.

RESULTS

Negative comments about the decision support system significantly outweighed the positive or neutral comments. Three main areas of concern among clinicians emerged: timing of the guideline trigger, ease of use of the system, and helpfulness of the content. Respondents did not feel that the system fitted well within the general practice context. Experience of "on-demand" information sources, which were generally more positively viewed, informed the comments about the system. Some general practitioners suggested that nurses might find the guideline content more clinically useful and might be more prepared to use a computerised decision support system, but lack of feedback from nurses who had experienced the system limited the ability to assess this.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant barriers exist to the use of complex clinical decision support systems for chronic disease by general practitioners. Key issues include the relevance and accuracy of messages and the flexibility to respond to other factors influencing decision making in primary care.

Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of a computerised support system for decision making for implementing evidence based clinical guidelines for the management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care.

DESIGN

A before and after pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial utilising a two by two incomplete block design.

SETTING

60 general practices in north east England.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners and practice nurses in the study practices and their patients aged 18 or over with angina or asthma.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adherence to the guidelines, based on review of case notes and patient reported generic and condition specific outcome measures.

RESULTS

The computerised decision support system had no significant effect on consultation rates, process of care measures (including prescribing), or any patient reported outcomes for either condition. Levels of use of the software were low.

CONCLUSIONS

No effect was found of computerised evidence based guidelines on the management of asthma or angina in adults in primary care. This was probably due to low levels of use of the software, despite the system being optimised as far as was technically possible. Even if the technical problems of producing a system that fully supports the management of chronic disease were solved, there remains the challenge of integrating the systems into clinical encounters where busy practitioners manage patients with complex, multiple conditions.