Control of asthma

Patterns of changes and diagnostic values of FEF50%, FEF25%-75% and FEF50%/FEF25%-75% ratio in patients with varying control of bronchial asthma

BACKGROUND

The pattern of change in FEF50%, FEF25%-75% and FEF50%/FEF25%-75% ratio depends on mechanics of forceful expiration, provided that non-homogenous lung emptying is faithfully recorded in the expiratory flow-volume loops.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential clinical value of FEF50%, FEF25%-75% and FEF50%/FEF25%-75% ratio as an indicator of bronchial asthma (BA) control.

METHODOLOGY

The study involved 75 patients with BA matched for age and gender with 45 non-asthmatic subjects. Based on asthma control test (ACT) and spirometry, asthmatic patients were subdivided into controlled and poorly controlled/uncontrolled. The relationship between FEF50% and FEF25%-75% as well as FEF50%/FEF25%-75% ratio and ACT score were assessed using linear regression. ROC curves were used to assess reliability of FEF25%-75% and FEF50% to diagnose BA in patients with different degree of asthma control.

RESULTS

FEF50% correlated strongly with FEF25%-75% (r = 0.989, P < 0.001) and the relationship between the two indices is governed by the formula FEF50% = 1.132* FEF25%-75% - 0.003. There was no significant correlation (r = - 0.159, P = 0.083) between FEF50%/FEF25-75% ratio and ACT score. The diagnostic capability of FEF25%-75% for spirometric diagnosis of BA is only marginally better compared to FEF50% (area under ROC curves were 0.88 and 0.89 respectively, P < 0.001); however, diagnostic power of both spirometric indices deceased with poor BA control.

CONCLUSION

FEF50%/FEF25%-75% has no clinical value as an indicator for BA control. Role of FEF25%-75% in evaluation of BA is marginally better than FEF50%; however, efficiency of both indices declined substantially as BA control worsened.

Autonomic modulations in patients with bronchial asthma based on short-term heart rate variability

BACKGROUND

Although enhanced cholinergic activity of asthmatics has been established early on, little heart rate variability (HRV) studies were done on asthma patients. Previous HRV studies were based on 24-hour recordings and therefore have not considered the extremely labile activity of bronchial asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the pattern of autonomic modulations in asthmatic patients based on short-term HRV studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study involved 100 asthmatic patients with an age range of 20-40 years. Asthma activity was evaluated over the last month prior to patients' assessment using asthma control test (ACT). Allflow Spirometer was used for assessing pulmonary function, while Biocom 3000 electrocardiography recorder was used for studying 5-minute HRV. Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Software. Heart rate and asthma medications were introduced as a covariate when studied variables were screened for significant correlation between measurements of asthma severity and heart rate variability indices using partial correlations.

RESULTS

The level of asthma control correlate positively with both normalized low frequency (LF Norm) and the ratio of low frequency/high frequency (LF/HF) (CC = 0.302, 0.212 and P = 0.002, 0.036, respectively) and negatively with HF Norm (CC = -0.317, P = 0.001). Duration of asthma correlates positively with normalized high frequency (HF Norm) (CC = 0.235, P = 0.020) and negatively with LF Norm (CC = -0.250, P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Poor asthma control is associated with lower HRV, depressed sympathetic and enhanced parasympathetic modulations especially in those with longer asthma duration.

Voriconazole and posaconazole improve asthma severity in allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis and severe asthma with fungal sensitization

Rationale and objectives. Severe asthma with fungal sensitization (SAFS) and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) are progressive allergic fungal lung diseases whose effective treatment remains to be established. Current treatment with itraconazole is associated with a 40% failure rate and adverse events (AEs). We assessed the effect of voriconazole or posaconazole as second- and third-line therapies. Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of adult asthmatic patients with either ABPA or SAFS receiving voriconazole or posaconazole. Clinical, radiological, and immunological evaluation was used to assess response. Results. There were 25 patients, ABPA (n = 20) or SAFS (n = 5), 10 males, median age = 58 years. All patients had failed itraconazole (n = 14) or developed AEs (n = 11). There were 33 courses of therapy analyzed, 24 with voriconazole and 9 with posaconazole. Clinical response to voriconazole was observed in 17/24 (70%) patients at 3 months, 15/20 (75%) at 6 months, and 12/16 (75%) at 12 months compared with 7/9 (78%) at 3, 6, and 12 months for posaconazole. Eighteen of 24 (75%) patients discontinued oral corticosteroids (OCS), 12 of them within 3 months of therapy. Asthma severity was downgraded from severe to moderate (n = 8) and moderate to mild (n = 1) asthma in 9 of 24 (38%) asthmatic patients. There was a marked reduction in OCS and short-acting beta-2 agonist use, health-care utilization due to asthma, and improvement in overall health status. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant reduction in immunological markers appearing at 9 months (p = .008) for total IgE and at 12 months for radioallergosorbent test IgE for Aspergillus fumigatus (p = .0056). Six of 23 (26%) patients on voriconazole had AEs requiring discontinuation before 6 months compared with none on posaconazole (p = .15). Four relapsed (57%), one at 3 months and three at 12 months after discontinuation. Conclusion. Both voriconazole and posaconazole are potentially effective alternative treatment options for SAFS and ABPA and may improve asthma control and reduce severity, though larger prospective studies are required to support these retrospective study findings.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines: 15 years of application

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), founded in 1993, embodies a network of public health organizations and medical societies, as well as other individuals concerned with asthma. Its first report, published in 1995 and entitled 'A Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention', has been widely adopted, providing the foundation for asthma guidelines in many nations across the world. To this effect, the report has not only been translated into several languages but has also been frequently updated. Since its establishment 15 years ago, GINA has undergone two major paradigm shifts. The first was the change in the late 1990s from an opinion- to an evidence-based approach for the management of asthma severity. The second, an even more radical shift, was seen in 2006, when the revised GINA guidelines involved the classification of asthma severity according to the level of control as a guide to treatment. In order to classify asthma control, elements such as the significance of the partnership between the patient and caregiver, patient education, guided self-management and treatment goals were introduced. In addition to compiling guidelines and reports for the management of asthma, GINA is actively involved in organizing and coordinating the World Asthma Day, regional initiatives and GINA symposia. On the whole, during the 15 years since their original publication in 1995, the GINA guidelines have provided the basis for many national asthma strategies around the world. This course is most likely to continue in the future. In this paper, the history of the development of the guidelines and other issues regarding the GINA project will be addressed.

History of guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma: from opinion to control

The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) was launched in 1993 in collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health (USA) and the WHO. Its first effort was the production of a consensus report on asthma treatment, which aimed to bridge the gap between the various treatment options and the incorporation and implementation of innovative treatment forms into daily clinical practice. The first report published in 1995, A Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, has been translated into several languages, widely adopted and provided the foundation for several asthma guidelines worldwide. The GINA and other guidelines were primarily based on consensus of expert opinion in order to employ a severity-based classification system as a guide to treatment. However, in the late 1990s, guidelines underwent a major paradigm shift from opinion- to evidence-based classification as the foundation for asthma management. A second major shift involved the classification of asthma according to the level of disease control as a guide to treatment, which was realized for the first time in the revised 2006 GINA guidelines. Since their first appearance, asthma guidelines have played a leading role in disseminating information about asthma. In addition, they have had a substantial impact on standardizing asthma care around the world, which is likely to continue in the future. This article addresses the history of guideline development and issues related to asthma guidelines, with particular emphasis on the GINA guidelines.