Daily versus as-needed corticosteroids for mild persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines recommend daily therapy for patients with mild persistent asthma, prescription patterns suggest that most such patients use these so-called controller therapies intermittently. In patients with mild persistent asthma, we evaluated the efficacy of intermittent short-course corticosteroid treatment guided by a symptom-based action plan alone or in addition to daily treatment with either inhaled budesonide or oral zafirlukast over a one-year period. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, 225 adults underwent randomization. The primary outcome was morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Other outcomes included the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) before and after bronchodilator treatment, the frequency of exacerbations, the degree of asthma control, the number of symptom-free days, and the quality of life. RESULTS: The three treatments produced similar increases in morning PEF (7.1 to 8.3 percent; approximately 32 liters per minute; P=0.90) and similar rates of asthma exacerbations (P=0.24), even though the intermittent-treatment group took budesonide, on average, for only 0.5 week of the year. As compared with intermittent therapy or daily zafirlukast therapy, daily budesonide therapy produced greater improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (P=0.005), bronchial reactivity (P<0.001), the percentage of eosinophils in sputum (P=0.007), exhaled nitric oxide levels (P=0.006), scores for asthma control (P<0.001), and the number of symptom-free days (P=0.03), but not in post-bronchodilator FEV1 (P=0.29) or in the quality of life (P=0.18). Daily zafirlukast therapy did not differ significantly from intermittent treatment in any outcome measured. CONCLUSIONS: It may be possible to treat mild persistent asthma with short, intermittent courses of inhaled or oral corticosteroids taken when symptoms worsen. Further studies are required to determine whether this novel approach to treatment should be recommended.

The Prevention of Early Asthma in Kids study: design, rationale and methods for the Childhood Asthma Research and Education network.

Pediatric asthma remains an important public health concern as its prevalence and cost to the health care system is rising. In order to promote innovative research in asthma therapies, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute created the Childhood Asthma Research and Education Network in 1999. As its first study, the steering committee of the Childhood Asthma Research and Education Network designed a randomized clinical trial to determine if persistent asthma could be prevented in children at a high risk to develop the disease. This communication presents the design of its first clinical trial, the Prevention of Asthma in Kids (PEAK) trial and the organization of the Childhood Asthma Research and Education Network that developed and implemented this trial. Studies of the natural history of asthma have shown that, in persistent asthma, the initial asthma-like symptoms and loss of lung function occur predominately during the first years of life. Therefore, in the Prevention of Asthma in Kids study, children 2 and 3 years old with a positive asthma predictive index were randomized to twice daily treatment with fluticasone 88 microg or placebo via metered-dose inhaler and Aerochamber for 2 years. The double blind treatment period was followed by a 1-year observational period. Lung function was measured by spirometry and oscillometry technique at 4-month intervals throughout the study. Bronchodilator reversibility and exhaled nitric oxide (ENO) studies were performed at the end of the treatment and observation periods. The primary outcome measure was the number of asthma-free days. Other secondary outcomes included number of exacerbations, use of asthma medications and lung function. These measures were chosen to reflect the progression of the disease from intermittent wheezing to persistent asthma and measurement of the extent of airflow limitation and airway reactivity.

Differences between students in problem-based and lecture-based curricula measured by clerkship performance ratings at the beginning of the third year.

BACKGROUND: Problem-based learning (PBL) is being incorporated into more medical curricula, but its influence on subsequent clinical performance remains unclear. PURPOSE: To determine if PBL leads to better scores for fund of knowledge or clinical problem-solving skills in required clerkships taken early in the 3rd year at Penn State College of Medicine. METHODS: Data were collected from 6 class years, for clinical clerkship subscores completed during the first 4 months of the 3rd year, of students completing 1 or 2 years in a PBL or traditional track. Clerkship scores were analyzed as individual clerkships and as the average across clerkships for each student. Statistical analysis included a comparison of clerkship scores between the 2 tracks; using a 2-sample t test, and calculation of effect sizes. A multiple regression model was also employed to adjust for age, gender, race, preadmission grade point average, and Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). RESULTS: Mean scores of individual clerkships taken by problem-based or lecture-based students differed significantly in some clerkships, but the effect size was small. The effect sizes for fund of knowledge for the 6 clerkships ranged from 0.20 to 0.41; for clinical problem-solving skills, they ranged from 0.26 to 0.39. These differences between the problem-based and lecture-based students were of the same magnitude as the difference at the start of medical school on the MCAT, namely d = 0.31. There was a trend toward higher effect sizes in students having 2 rather than 1 year of PBL, and in later iterations of the track. CONCLUSION: PBL effect size on students' scores for fund of knowledge and clinical problem-solving skills was small to moderate in various years.