Patient views on asthma diagnosis and how a clinical decision support system could help: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Making a diagnosis of asthma can be challenging for clinicians and patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) for use in primary care including a patient-facing mode, could change how information is shared between patients and healthcare professionals and improve the diagnostic process. METHODS: Participants diagnosed with asthma within the last 5 years were recruited from general practices across four UK regions. In-depth interviews were used to explore patient experiences relating to their asthma diagnosis and to understand how a CDSS could be used to improve the diagnostic process for patients. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Seventeen participants (12 female) undertook interviews, including 14 individuals and 3 parents of children with asthma. Being diagnosed with asthma was generally considered an uncertain process. Participants felt a lack of consultation time and poor communication affected their understanding of asthma and what to expect. Had the nature of asthma and the steps required to make a diagnosis been explained more clearly, patients felt their understanding and engagement in asthma self-management could have been improved. Participants considered that a CDSS could provide resources to support the diagnostic process, prompt dialogue, aid understanding and support shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: Undergoing an asthma diagnosis was uncertain for patients if their ideas and concerns were not addressed by clinicians and were influenced by a lack of consultation time and limitations in communication. An asthma diagnosis CDSS could provide structure and an interface to prompt dialogue, provide visuals about asthma to aid understanding and encourage patient involvement. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Prespecified semistructured interview topic guides (young person and adult versions) were developed by the research team and piloted with members of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group. Findings were regularly discussed within the research group and with PPI colleagues to aid the interpretation of data.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2-agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Small-Airway Function Variables in Spirometry, Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide, and Circulating Eosinophils Predicted Airway Hyperresponsiveness in Patients with Mild Asthma.

PURPOSE: Patients with variable symptoms suggestive of asthma but with normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) often fail to be diagnosed without a bronchial provocation test, but the test is expensive, time-consuming, risky, and not readily available in all clinical settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed in 692 patients with FEV1≥80% predicted; normal neutrophils and chest high-resolution computed tomography; and recurrent dyspnea, cough, wheeze, and chest tightness. RESULTS: Compared with subjects negative for AHR (n=522), subjects positive for AHR (n=170) showed increased FENO values, peripheral eosinophils (EOS), and R5-R20; decreased FEV1, FEV1/Forced vital capacity (FVC), and forced expiratory flow (FEFs) (P≤.001 for all). Small-airway dysfunction was identified in 104 AHR+ patients (61.17%), and 132 AHR- patients (25.29%) (P<0.001). The areas under the curve (AUCs) of variables used singly for an AHR diagnosis were lower than 0.77. Using joint models of FEF50%, FEF75%, or FEF25%-75% with FENO increased the AUCs to 0.845, 0.824, and 0.844, respectively, significantly higher than univariate AUCs (P <0.001 for all). Patients who reported chest tightness (n=75) had lower FEFs than patients who did not (P<0.001 for all). In subjects with chest tightness, the combination of FEF50% or FEF25%-75% with EOS also increased the AUCs substantially, to 0.815 and 0.816, respectively (P <0.001 for all versus the univariate AUCs). CONCLUSION: FENO combined with FEF50% and FEF25%-75% predict AHR in patients with normal FEV1. FEF25%-75%, FEF50%, or FEF25%-75% together with EOS also can potentially suggest asthma in patients with chest tightness.