Remote monitoring of inhaled bronchodilator use and weekly feedback about asthma management: an open-group, short-term pilot study of the impact on asthma control.

OBJECTIVE: Adequate symptom control is a problem for many people with asthma. We asked whether weekly email reports on monitored use of inhaled, short-acting bronchodilators might improve scores on composite asthma-control measures. METHODS: Through an investigational electronic medication sensor attached to each participant's inhaler, we monitored 4 months' use of inhaled, short-acting bronchodilators. Participants completed surveys, including the Asthma Control Test(TM) (ACT), to assess asthma control at entry and monthly thereafter. After the first month, participants received weekly email reports for 3 months. The reports summarized inhaled bronchodilator use during the preceding week and provided suggestions derived from National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines. Paired t-tests and random-effects mixed models were implemented to assess changes in primary asthma endpoints. RESULTS: Thirty individuals participated in the 4-month study; 29 provided complete asthma control information. Mean age was 36.8 years (range: 19-74 years); 52% of respondents were female. Mean ACT scores were 17.6 (Standard Deviation [SD]  = 3.35) at entry and 18.4 (SD = 3.60) at completion of the first month. No significant difference appeared between ACT values at entry and completion of the first month (p = 0.66); however, after participants began receiving email reports and online information about their inhaler use, mean ACT scores increased 1.40 points (95% CI: 0.61, 2.18) for each subsequent study month. Significant decreases occurred in 2-week histories of daytime symptoms (ß = -1.35, 95% CI: -2.65, -0.04) and nighttime symptoms (ß = -0.84, 95% CI: -1.25, -0.44); no significant change in activity limitation (ß = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.69, 0.26) was observed. Participants reported increased awareness and understanding of asthma patterns, level of control, bronchodilator use (timing, location) and triggers, and improved preventive practices. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly email reports and access to online charts summarizing remote monitoring of inhaled bronchodilator frequency and location were associated with improved asthma control and a decline in day-to-day asthma symptoms.

A national survey of adult asthma prevalence by urban-rural residence U.S. 2005.

OBJECTIVES: We analyzed national data to estimate asthma prevalence among U.S. adults by urban-rural residence and to determine the relative contributions of sociodemographic and health behavior characteristics on the probability of reporting asthma. METHODS: We linked the 2005 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to Urban Influence Codes (UICs), categorizing respondents into four urban-rural groups: metropolitan, adjacent metropolitan, micropolitan, and remote. BRFSS collects health data from all 50 states. UICs classify respondent's county as urban or rural based on population size and proximity to metropolitan areas. We calculated asthma prevalence estimates and generated odds ratios (ORs) for the probability of reporting asthma. RESULTS: Overall asthma prevalence (7.9%; 95%CI = 7.73-8.08) was not statistically different (p = 0.28) by urban-rural residence. After adjusting for selected characteristics, adjacent metropolitan (OR = 0.96; 95%CI = 0.90-1.02) and remote (OR = 0.95; 95%CI = 0.85-1.05) residents were less likely--and micropolitan (OR = 1.04; 95%CI = 0.93-1.16) residents were more likely--to report asthma compared with metropolitan residents; but confidence intervals included null. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma prevalence is as high in rural as in urban areas. Certain demographic, behavioral, and health care characteristics unique to place of residence might affect asthma prevalence. Because these results substantially change our understanding of asthma prevalence in rural areas, further investigation is needed to determine geographic-related risk factors.

A prospective, observational registry of patients with severe sepsis: the Canadian Sepsis Treatment and Response Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the location of acquisition, timing, and outcomes associated with severe sepsis in community and teaching hospital critical care units. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Twelve Canadian community and teaching hospital critical care units. PATIENTS: All patients admitted between March 17, 2003, and November 30, 2004 to the study critical care units with at least a 24-hr length of stay or severe sepsis identified during the first 24 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: Daily monitoring for severe sepsis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We recorded data describing characteristics of patients, infections, systemic responses, and organ dysfunction. Severe sepsis occurred in 1238 patients (overall rate, 19.0%; range, 8.2%-35.3%). Hospital mortality was 38.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.4-40.8). Median intensive care unit length of stay was 10.3 days (interquartile range: 5.5, 17.9). Variables associated with mortality in multivariable analysis included age (odds ratio [OR] by decade 1.50; 95% CI: 1.36-1.65), acquisition location of severe sepsis (with community as the reference-hospital [OR: 1.69; CI: 1.16-2.46], early intensive care unit [OR: 2.15; CI: 1.42-3.25], late intensive care unit [OR: 2.65; CI: 1.82-3.87]), late intensive care unit (OR: 2.65; CI: 1.82-3.87), any comorbidity (OR: 1.42; CI: 1.04-1.93), chronic renal failure (OR: 2.03; CI: 1.10-3.76), oliguria (OR: 1.34; CI: 1.02-1.76), thrombocytopenia (OR: 2.12; CI: 1.43-3.13), metabolic acidosis (OR: 1.54; CI: 1.13-2.10), Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (OR: 1.15; CI: 1.09-1.21) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II predicted risk (OR: 3.75; CI: 2.08-6.76). CONCLUSION: These data confirm that sepsis is common and has high mortality in general intensive care unit populations. Our results can inform healthcare system planning and clinical study designs. Modifiable variables associated with worse outcomes, such as nosocomial infection (hospital acquisition), and metabolic acidosis indicate potential targets for quality improvement initiatives that could decrease mortality and morbidity.

Multicentre, cluster-randomized clinical trial of algorithms for critical-care enteral and parenteral therapy (ACCEPT).

BACKGROUND: The provision of nutritional support for patients in intensive care units (ICUs) varies widely both within and between institutions. We tested the hypothesis that evidence-based algorithms to improve nutritional support in the ICU would improve patient outcomes. METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in the ICUs of 11 community and 3 teaching hospitals between October 1997 and September 1998. Hospital ICUs were stratified by hospital type and randomized to the intervention or control arm. Patients at least 16 years of age with an expected ICU stay of at least 48 hours were enrolled in the study (n = 499). Evidence-based recommendations were introduced in the 7 intervention hospitals by means of in-service education sessions, reminders (local dietitian, posters) and academic detailing that stressed early institution of nutritional support, preferably enteral. RESULTS: Two hospitals crossed over and were excluded from the primary analysis. Compared with the patients in the control hospitals (n = 214), the patients in the intervention hospitals (n = 248) received significantly more days of enteral nutrition (6.7 v. 5.4 per 10 patient-days; p = 0.042), had a significantly shorter mean stay in hospital (25 v. 35 days; p = 0.003) and showed a trend toward reduced mortality (27% v. 37%; p = 0.058). The mean stay in the ICU did not differ between the control and intervention groups (10.9 v. 11.8 days; p = 0.7). INTERPRETATION: Implementation of evidence-based recommendations improved the provision of nutritional support and was associated with improved clinical outcomes.