Have expert guidelines made a difference in asthma outcomes?

Understanding decision-making and educational need in the management of pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe asthma: analysis of a US-based clinician survey

BACKGROUND

Asthma creates a substantial burden on the pediatric healthcare system, particularly by those with moderate-to-severe disease. As few studies have been published specific to clinician evaluation and management of this population, this analysis serves to begin to identify educational needs and potential clinical impact.

METHODS

We conducted a case-based survey of US general pediatric (n = 227), allergy (n = 158), and pediatric pulmonology (n = 70) clinicians to understand the current approach to management of pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

RESULTS

Results show inconsistencies in guideline adherence, identification of disease severity and control, referral practices, and knowledge of phenotypes, which may impact clinical decision making. While most clinicians refer to guidelines when managing pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, there is no preferred set, and they find the guidelines to be moderately useful. General pediatricians are more likely than specialists to have difficulty distinguishing control and severity and may not be familiar with the concept of asthma phenotype. Most surveyed pediatricians indicated they refer patients to a specialist, but did not always do so in the cases. Clinicians have little consensus on the best approach to manage patients with uncontrolled symptoms after optimized therapy. Many clinicians may have uncertainty about how elevated eosinophils or FeNO could affect patient management. Further, there may be gaps in incorporating parents and pediatric patients into shared decision-making in their care.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the needs of those managing patients with moderate-to-severe asthma is critical to developing effective continuing education activities to improve patient outcomes.

Design of a home-based intervention for Houston-area African-American adults with asthma: Methods and lessons learned from a pragmatic randomized trial

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that home-based, multicomponent interventions can effectively reduce exposures to asthma triggers and decrease asthma symptoms. However, few of these studies have targeted adults. To address this and other research gaps, we designed and implemented a pragmatic randomized clinical trial, the Houston Home-based Integrated Intervention Targeting Better Asthma Control (HIITBAC) for African Americans, to assess the effectiveness of a home-based intervention to improve asthma control and quality of life in African-American adults-a population disproportionately affected by asthma. The primary goals were to help participants reduce allergens and irritants in their homes and better manage their disease through knowledge, improved medication use, and behavior change. HIITBAC had two groups: clinic-only and home-visit groups. Both groups received enhanced clinical care, but the home-visit group also received a detailed home assessment and four additional home visits spaced over roughly one year. We recruited 263 participants. Of these, 152 (57.8%) were recruited through electronic health record data, 51 (19.4%) through Emergency Medical Services data, and 60 (22.8%) through other efforts (e.g., emergency departments, community events, outreach). Seventy participants (26.6%) were lost to follow up, substantially more in the home-visit than in the clinic-only group. We describe the HIITBAC methodology and cohort, discuss lessons learned about recruitment and retention, and highlight adaptations we implemented to address these lessons.

Use of Asthma APGAR Tools in Primary Care Practices: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess patient and practice outcomes after introducing the Asthma APGAR (Activities, Persistent, triGGers, Asthma medications, Response to therapy) tools into primary care practices.

METHODS

We used a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled design in 18 US family medicine and pediatric practices to compare outcomes in patients with persistent asthma aged 5 to 45 years after introduction of the Asthma APGAR tools vs usual care. Patient outcomes included asthma control, quality of life, and emergency department (ED), urgent care, and inpatient hospital visits. The practice outcome was adherence to asthma guidelines.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1,066 patients: 245 children, 174 adolescents, and 647 adults. Sixty-five percent (692 patients) completed both baseline and 12-month questionnaires, allowing analysis for patient-reported outcomes. Electronic health record data were available for 1,063 patients (99.7%) for practice outcomes. The proportion of patients reporting an asthma-related ED, urgent care, or hospital visit in the final 6 months of the study was lower in the APGAR practices vs usual care practices (10.6% vs 20.9%, P = .004). The percentage of patients with "in control" asthma increased more between baseline and 1 year in the APGAR group vs usual care group (13.5% vs 3.4%, P =.0001 vs P =.86) with a trend toward better control scores and asthma-related quality of life in the former at 1 year (P ≤.06 and P = .06, respectively). APGAR practices improved their adherence to 3 or more guideline elements compared with usual care practices (20.7% increase vs 1.9% decrease, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of the Asthma APGAR tools improves rates of asthma control; reduces asthma-related ED, urgent care, and hospital visits; and increases practices' adherence to asthma management guidelines.

Adherence to Asthma Guidelines in Children, Tweens, and Adults in Primary Care Settings: A Practice-Based Network Assessment

OBJECTIVE

To assess primary care adherence to 2007 US asthma guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with persistent asthma aged 5 to 65 years from 22 primary care participating practices provided the data for this analysis of baseline information from the pragmatic randomized clinical trial the Asthma Tools Study. Using a combination of abstracted medical record data and patient-reported demographic information, we assessed the medical record documentation for elements of the 2007 US asthma guidelines. Elements assessed included documentation of (1) assessment of control, (2) factors that affect control (medication adherence evaluation, inhaler technique education, and evaluation for triggers), (3) self-management support (action plan), and (4) asthma medications prescribed (short-acting β-agonists and daily maintenance therapy). The baseline data was collected from March 16, 2009, to May 1, 2014.

RESULTS

In 1176 patients (285 children, 211 tweens, and 680 adults) from 16 family medicine and 6 pediatric practices across the United States, documented guideline adherence was highest for prescription of medications (88.0% for short-acting β-agonists and 70.4% for maintenance medications) and lowest for an asthma action plan (3.1%). Documentation of control (15.0%) and factors that affect control (inhaler technique education, 7.6%; medication adherence assessment, 32.5%; and allergy evaluation, 32.5%) was not common and even less common for adults compared with children. A total of 22.2% of the enrolled patients had no asthma-related visit in the year before enrollment. Adherence to the nonmedication elements were higher in practices located in cities of more than 250,000 people and cities that used electronic medical records. Older patient age was negatively associated with guideline adherence.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Adherence to asthma guidelines is poor in primary care practices, leaving many opportunities for improvement.