Global Considerations in Asthma Treatment: Management in Low Resource Settings.

Low-resource settings have a disproportionately higher burden of asthma due to factors that include environmental triggers, access to healthcare, availability of medications, and uncoordinated health systems. The application of guideline-based management can vary, which further impacts the treatment delivered. This chapter aims to outline the global landscape of asthma management, including cultural and social factors, with suggestions for interventions.

Asthma specialist care preferences among parents of children receiving emergency department care for asthma.

Objective: To learn factors associated with desire for asthma specialist care among parents of children seeking emergency department (ED) care for asthma, and if referral was indicated based on national asthma guidelines. Methods: We surveyed parents of children ages 0-18 years seeking pediatric ED asthma care, then comparisons were made according to parental level of interest in asthma specialist care, with regard to socio-demographics, asthma morbidity and care, by chi-squared and logistic regression. Results: Of 149 children, 20% reported specialist care, but 75% met guideline criteria for referral. About 80% of parents not seeing an asthma specialist expressed a desire to see one. Higher rates of prior urgent care visits (48% vs. 22%, p = 0.03), ED visits (82% vs. 35%, p < 0.001) and oral steroid use (53% vs. 22%, p = 0.009) were reported by parents who desired an asthma specialist compared with parents who did not. 87% of parents not seeing a specialist attributed this to a perceived lack of necessity by their primary care provider. An ED visit within the prior 12 months was the most significant predictor in parental desire for specialist care (odds ratio 9.75; 95% CI 3.42-27.76) in adjusted logistic regression models. Conclusion: High rates of parental preference for asthma specialist care suggest that directly querying parents may be an efficient method to identify children appropriate for specialist care in the ED.

Allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

Rhinitis is characterized by nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and/or posterior nasal drainage. It affects a significant portion of the population and presents a large burden economically and on quality of life. Rhinitis is broadly characterized as allergic and nonallergic, of which nonallergic rhinitis may be divided into inflammatory and noninflammatory etiologies. The inflammatory causes include nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia, postinfectious, and rhinitis associated with nasal polyps. The noninflammatory causes include idiopathic nonallergic (vasomotor) rhinitis, medication-induced rhinitis, hormone related (e.g., pregnancy), and systemic disease related. Allergic rhinitis is classified as intermittent or persistent and mild versus moderate-severe. The nasal mucosa is extremely vascular; parasympathetic stimulation promotes an increase in nasal cavity resistance and nasal gland secretion, whereas sympathetic stimulation leads to vasoconstriction. The diagnosis of rhinitis begins with a directed history, particularly noting pattern, chronicity, and triggers of symptoms. Examination of the nasal cavity with attention to appearance of the septum and inferior turbinates is recommended. Skin testing for aeroallergens is helpful in demonstrating the presence or absence of immunoglobulin E antibodies and to differentiate nonallergic from allergic rhinitis. Treatment includes patient education, irritant or allergen avoidance, and pharmacotherapy. Medications used for the treatment of rhinitis include intranasal corticosteroids, oral and intranasal antihistamines, intranasal anticholinergic agents, oral decongestants, and leukotriene receptor antagonists. When used in combination, an intranasal antihistamine spray and nasal steroid provide greater symptomatic relief than monotherapy. Allergen immunotherapy is the only disease-modifying intervention available for allergic rhinitis.

Acute severe asthma (status asthmaticus).

Acute severe asthma, formerly known as status asthmaticus, is defined as severe asthma unresponsive to repeated courses of beta-agonist therapy. It is a medical emergency that requires immediate recognition and treatment. Albuterol in combination with ipratropium bromide in the emergency department (ED) has been shown to decrease the time spent in the ED and the hospitalization rates. The benefits of ipratropium are not sustained after admission to the hospital. Oral or parenteral corticosteroids should be administered to all patients with acute severe asthma as early as possible because clinical benefits may not occur for a minimum of 6 to 12 hours. Viral respiratory infections are a common trigger for acute asthma; other causes include medical nonadherence, allergen exposure (especially pets and mold [e.g., Alternaria species]) in individuals who are severely atopic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory exposure in patients with aspirin allergy, irritant inhalation (e.g., smoke, paint), exercise, and insufficient use of inhaled or oral corticosteroids. The patient's history should focus on the acute assessment of asthma control and morbidity, including current use of oral or inhaled corticosteroids; the number of hospitalizations, ED visits, intensive care unit admissions, and intubations; the frequency of albuterol use; the presence of nighttime symptoms; activity intolerance; current medications; exposure to allergens; and other significant medical conditions. Severe airflow obstruction may be predicted by accessory muscle use, difficulty speaking, refusal to recline < 30°, a pulse of >120 beats/min, and decreased breath sounds. More objective measures of airway obstruction via peak flow or forced expiratory volume in 1 second and pulse oximetry before oxygen administration usually are helpful. Pulse oximetry values of >90% are reassuring, although CO2 retention and a low partial pressure of oxygen may be missed.

Unproved and controversial methods and theories in allergy/immunology.

Unproved methods and controversial theories in the diagnosis and management of allergy/immunology are those that lack scientific credibility. Some definitions are provided for perspective, as in chronic medical conditions, frequently nonscientifically based treatments are developed that can have a profound psychological effect on the patients in the absence of objective physical benefit. Standard practice uses methods of diagnosis and treatment used by reputable physicians in a particular subspecialty or primary care practice, with the understanding that diagnosis and treatment options are consistent with established mechanisms of conditions or diseases. Conventional medicine (Western or allopathic medicine) is that which is practiced by the majority of physicians, osteopaths, psychologists, registered nurses, and physical therapists. Complementary medicine involves diverse practices or products that are used with the practice of conventional medicine, such as using acupuncture in addition to opioids for pain relief. Alternative medicine implies use of complementary practices in place of conventional medicine. Unproved and controversial methods and theories do not have supporting data, validation, or sufficient scientific scrutiny, and they should not be used in the practice of allergy/immunology. Some examples of unproven theories about allergic/immunologic conditions include allergic toxemia, idiopathic environmental intolerance, and toxic disease from indoor molds. Unconventional diagnostic methods for allergic conditions include cytotoxic tests, provocation-neutralization, electrodermal diagnosis, applied kinesiology assessments, chemical analysis of body fluids, and serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) or IgG4 testing. Unproven treatments and intervention methods for allergic/immunologic conditions include acupuncture, homeopathy, halotherapy, and autogenous urine injections.

Managing Younger Siblings of Food Allergic Children.

Current guidelines state that there is insufficient evidence to recommend testing siblings of food allergic children before introduction of potential allergic foods, but the topic continues to remain controversial. Although the proportion of siblings who are sensitized to a food without clinical reactivity is high in comparison to those with a true food allergy, there is still a known increased risk amongst siblings of children with food allergies that has led to much apprehension about management. The appropriateness of testing and further steps for management of sensitization in the absence of history of clinical reactivity should be discussed with parents.

Predictors of prior asthma specialist care among pediatric patients seen in the emergency department for asthma.

Background: Asthma guidelines recommend specialist care for patients experiencing poor asthma outcomes during emergency department (ED) visits. The prevalence and predictors of asthma specialist care among an ED population seeking pediatric asthma care are unknown. Objective: To examine, in an ED population, factors associated with prior asthma specialist use based on parental reports of prior asthma morbidity and asthma care. Methods: Parents of children ages 0 to 17 years seeking ED asthma care were surveyed regarding socio-demographics, asthma morbidity, asthma management and current asthma specialist care status. We compared prior asthma care and morbidity between those currently cared for by an asthma specialist versus not. Multivariable logistic regression models to predict factors associated with asthma specialist use were adjusted for parent education and insurance type. Results: Of 150 children (62% boys, mean age 4.7 years, 69% Hispanic), 22% reported asthma specialist care, 75% did not see a specialist and for 3% specialist status was unknown. Care was worse for those not seeing a specialist, including under-use of controller medications (24% vs. 64%, p < 0.001) and asthma action plans (20% vs. 62%, p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that lack of recommendation by the primary care physician reduced the odds of specialist care (OR 0.01, 95% CI <0.01, 0.05, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Asthma specialist care was infrequent among this pediatric ED population, consistent with the sub-optimal chronic asthma care we observed. Prospective trials should further investigate if systematic referral to asthma specialists during/after an ED encounter would improve asthma outcomes.