A pilot study to improve provider adherence to NAEPP guidelines.

The prevalence and morbidity of Asthma in the United States has increased since the 1991 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) and updated Expert Panel Report -3 (EPR-3) guidelines in 2007 were published. To improve provider adherence to the NAEPP EPR-3 guidelines Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC) in California integrated the HealtheIntentSM Pediatric Asthma Registry (PAR) into the electronic medical record (EMR) in 2015. METHODS: A serial cross-sectional design was used to compare provider management of CHOC MediCal asthma patients before 2014 (N = 6606) and after 2018 (N = 6945) integration of the Registry with NAEPP guidelines into the EMR. Four provider adherence measures (Asthma Control Test [ACT], Asthma Action Plan [AAP], inhaled corticosteroids [ICS] and spacers) were evaluated using General Linear Mixed Models and Chi square. FINDINGS: In 2018, patients were more likely to receive an ACT, (OR = 14.95, 95% CI 12.67, 17.65, p < .001), AAP (OR = 12.70, 95% CI 11.10, 14.54, p < .001), ICS (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 8.52, 14.54, p < .001) and spacer (OR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.31, 1.6, p < .001) compared to those in 2014. DISCUSSION: The pilot study showed integration of the Pediatric Asthma Registry into the EMR, as a computer decision support tool that was an effective intervention to increase provider adherence to NAEPP guidelines. Ongoing monitoring and education are needed to promote and sustain provider behavioral change. Additional research to include multi-sites and decreased time between evaluation years is recommended. APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: Can be used for excellent health policy decision making as a direct impact on patient care and outcomes, by improving provider adherence to the NAEPP guidelines.

Are you comfortable with over-the-counter intranasal steroids for children? A call to action.

The early expression of allergic rhinitis in children is a potential red flag for lifelong problems and comorbid conditions. However, treating pediatric allergic rhinitis in the United States is trending toward a self-management or parental management model with little clinical supervision, which reflects changes in the delivery of health care. Of particular concern are the recent approval of an over-the-counter intranasal steroid to treat nasal allergy symptoms in adults and children as young as age 2 years and the push for a retail model of health care as exists in some other countries. For children with allergic rhinitis, treating nasal symptoms alone with over-the-counter products may further delay a diagnosis that is often already ignored due to its "annoyance factor" as opposed to being considered a serious health issue. How to ensure an appropriate diagnosis and management for these children remains a challenge, regardless of who is doing the treating. The call to action is for allergists and allergy medical organizations to drive the effort to ensure awareness of the why and how for appropriately diagnosing and treating allergic rhinitis in children. Starting points for the discussion are provided.

A control model to evaluate pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis in children.

IMPORTANCE: Although the question of whether early diagnosis and treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) improve disease control is important, a more crucial question is whether we can evaluate the effect of treatment on disease control using an impairment-risk model. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review evaluating application of a control model based on domains of impairment and risk (similar to that used for asthma) in pharmacotherapy for children with AR. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (January 1, 1996, through May 31, 2012) for controlled studies lasting 2 weeks or longer in children with confirmed diagnoses of AR, including measures assessing impairment and/or risk of comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Sixteen controlled clinical trials, including more than 3000 children (aged 2-18 years) with AR (seasonal, n = 2290; perennial, n = 800), met the study criteria. All medication classes improved impairment related to AR, but between-treatment comparisons were limited because of different assessments. Intranasal steroids improved risk outcomes associated with asthma and obstructive sleep apnea. Small single studies suggested possible effects of oral antihistamines on asthma and sleep-disordered breathing. No risk data were available for nasal antihistamines or montelukast sodium. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of AR, particularly with intranasal steroids, improves disease control in children by reducing disease-associated impairment and risk. All AR medications with proved efficacy probably improve impairment, paralleling symptom reduction. Intranasal steroids may reduce the likelihood of comorbidities that increase health care use. These observations, although limited by different protocols and outcomes measures among studies, support current practice recommendations. Studies that use standardized measures of impairment to permit better comparison and appropriate protocols for risk evaluation are needed.

Evaluation of the Fight Asthma Now (FAN) program to improve asthma knowledge in urban youth and teenagers.

BACKGROUND: School-based asthma education programs targeting disadvantaged youth and teens with asthma are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the Fight Asthma Now (FAN) educational program among 2 populations of predominantly low-income minority students: youth (3(rd)-6(th) graders) and teens (7(th)-8(th) graders). METHODS: Chicago-area elementary schools were invited to participate in this stratified 2-arm study. Eligible schools were assigned to participate either in the intervention or in the control arm. Within each participating school, eligible students were recruited and grouped (stratified by grade and age) to form teen or youth classes. Participants completed a pre- and post-intervention asthma knowledge questionnaire and observation for spacer technique competency. The treatment group received the FAN curriculum between the evaluations. RESULTS: A sample of 26 low-income, predominantly minority-serving schools was recruited. Most participating schools were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to form 25 youth classes (19 intervention and 6 control group) and 16 teen classes (11 intervention and 5 control group), resulting in 275 vs 69 youth and 141 vs 51 teens in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Stratified analyses were performed, and clustering within the school and class was taken into consideration in analyses. Multilevel models adjusting for school, class, ethnicity, sex, and pretest score indicate that the FAN intervention significantly increased both knowledge and spacer competency test scores, among both the youth and teen participants (P = .011 with respect to knowledge score among teen students, P < .0001 for all other cases). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that FAN significantly increases asthma knowledge and spacer technique competency within this high-risk population.

From the page to the clinic: Implementing new National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines.

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's (NAEPP) revised guidelines, the Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3), published in 2007, represents a shift in the approach to asthma: the EPR-3 recommends that clinicians think of asthma as a chronic disease with an inflammatory basis. EPR-3 guidelines also represent a shift in the treatment paradigm for asthma in line with the shift in approach: although symptomatic relief is still necessary, the primary goal of asthma treatment is now long-term control, with the aim of minimizing exacerbation frequency and severity and limiting possible permanent airway damage that can result from frequent asthma exacerbations. To help clinicians implement the new EPR-3 guidelines into daily practice, the NAEPP's Guidelines Implementation Panel has identified 6 key action-focused recommendations. This article describes those recommendations and the evidence supporting them.

Inhaled corticosteroids and asthma control in children: assessing impairment and risk.

OBJECTIVE: To review the use of inhaled corticosteroids on asthma control in children by using the new therapeutic paradigm outlined in the Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed by using the Medline and Embase databases (January 1996 to October 2007). RESULTS: A total of 18 placebo-controlled, clinical trials in >8000 children (aged 0-17 years) with asthma met the criteria for evaluating monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids: 13 double-blind studies of inhaled corticosteroids versus placebo and 5 controlled studies that compared inhaled corticosteroids to a nonsteroid antiinflammatory agent. The findings can be summarized as follows: (1) Compared with placebo, inhaled corticosteroid treatment was associated with reductions in both the impairment and risk domains. (2) Improvements in impairment and risk observed with inhaled corticosteroids were generally greater than those observed with nonsteroid antiinflammatory comparator medications. (3) Inhaled corticosteroids were well tolerated. (4) Small reductions in growth rates were evident when compared with placebo and/or comparator nonsteroid antiinflammatory medication use in the long-term (>1-year) studies, but when measured, the reductions diminished with time. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with inhaled corticosteroids improves the asthma-control domains of impairment and risk in children. Differences in study protocols make detailed comparisons difficult. Specific needs for additional trials include (1) more studies using appropriate indicators for impairment (eg, rescue-medication use; symptoms scores; asthma/episode-free days) and risk (eg, forced expiratory volume in 1 second in children who can perform spirometry; exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids; urgent care usage) and (2) more studies evaluating adolescents; the majority of the data reported were for children up to the age of 12 years, and data for adolescents are often lost (either grouped with adults [eg, studies in patients > or =12 years old] or not included [eg, studies of school-aged children < or =12 years old]). Attention should be given to standardizing variables that will permit comparison of outcomes between trials.

Obtaining utility estimates of the health value of commonly prescribed treatments for asthma and depression.

BACKGROUND: Comparing the costs and health value associated with alternative quality improvement efforts is useful. This study employs expert panel methodology to elicit numerical estimates based on a 0 to 1 utility scale of the health benefit of usual treatment patterns for 2 medical conditions. METHOD: The approach includes development of clinical profiles and derivation of treatment benefit estimates via the elicitation of utility ratings before and after treatment. Clinical profiles specified characteristics of patient groups, treatments to be rated, and their combinations. A panel of 13 asthma and depression experts made a series of utility ratings (before any new treatment, 1 or 3 mo later with no treatment, 1 or 3 mo after initiating various common treatments) for adult patient groups with depression or asthma. The panel convened to discuss discrepancies and subsequently made final ratings. Treatment benefit estimates were derived from the ratings made by the panelists after the panel meeting. RESULTS: The treatment benefit estimates had face validity and minimal variability, indicating considerable consensus among experts. Treatment benefit estimates ranged from -0.03 to 0.25 for depression and from -0.04 to 0.24 for asthma. There was minimal variation in the estimates for both conditions (the estimates' standard deviations ranged from 0.01 to 0.06). Comparisons of the treatment benefit estimates before and after the expert panel meeting indicated substantial convergence, and evidence suggests that the benefit estimates are comparable across the 2 health conditions. CONCLUSION: Comparable estimates of treatment benefit for distinct health conditions can be obtained from experts using the expert panel methodology.

Screening and familial testing of patients for alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency.

alpha(1)-Antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is an autosomal-codominant genetic disorder that predisposes individuals to the development of liver and lung disease. AATD is greatly underrecognized and underdiagnosed. Early identification allows preventive measures to be taken, the most important of which is the avoidance of smoking (including the inhalation of second-hand smoke) and exposure to environmental pollutants. Early detection also allows careful lung function monitoring and augmentation therapy while the patient still has preserved lung function. Cost factors and controversies have discouraged the initiation of large-scale screening programs of the newborn and adult populations in the United States and Europe (except for Sweden). There are sound medical reasons for targeted screening. Evidence-based recommendations for testing have been published by the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force, which take potential social, psychological, and ethical adverse factors into consideration. This review discusses rationales for testing and screening for AATD in asymptomatic individuals, family members, and the general population, weighing benefits against potential psychological, social, and ethical implications of testing. For most, negative issues are outweighed by the benefits of testing. AATD testing should be routine in the management of adults with emphysema, COPD, and asthma with incompletely reversible airflow obstruction.

Issues in the diagnosis of alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency.

Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency is a relatively common genetic disease that is underrecognized and underdiagnosed. Early diagnosis in the asymptomatic patient helps modify lifestyle choices to reduce the risk of emphysema. In 2003, the American Thoracic Society and the European Respiratory Society issued guidelines to improve standards in diagnosing alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency. This review highlights key recommendations for diagnosis of alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency, including the different types of diagnostic tests recommended in the guidelines. Options for patient treatment will be discussed.