[Asthma 2020 Nursing Consensus Document]. / Documento de consenso de enfermería en asma 2020.

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease which presents with a risk of exacerbations. Good patient management and continuous monitoring are crucial for good disease control, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are essential for proper treatment. Nurses specialised in asthma can contribute to the correct management of asthmatic patients. They play a key role in diagnostic tests, administration of medication, and patient follow-up and education. This consensus arose from the need to address an aspect of asthma management that does not appear in the specific recommendations of current guidelines. This document highlights and updates the role of specialized nurses in the care and management of asthma patients, offering conclusions and practical recommendations with the aim of improving their contribution to the treatment of this disease. Proposed recommendations appear as the result of a nominal consensus which was developed during 2019, and validated at the beginning of 2020.

Coste-efectividad de una unidad monográfica de asma / Cost Effectiveness of Outpatient Asthma Clinics

INTRODUCCIÓN: Las unidades monográficas de asma (UMA) son consultas hospitalarias implementadas para lograr una mejoría clínica de los pacientes. Este estudio analiza su impacto sobre el control del asma y su coste-efectividad en comparación con las consultas ordinarias. MÉTODOS: Estudio de casos cruzados que incluyó a todos los pacientes que fueron atendidos por primera vez en la UMA de Lugo durante 2012. Se definió el «periodo-caso» como los 365días que siguieron a la primera visita en la UMA, y el «periodo-control» como los 365días que la antecedieron. Se calcularon los cambios en indicadores clínicos relevantes para el control del asma y se estimó la relación de coste-efectividad incremental (RCEI) por cada paciente adicional que fue controlado y por cada año de vida ajustado por calidad (AVAC). RESULTADOS: El porcentaje de pacientes (n = 83, edad media 49 ± 15,2 años; 60,2% mujeres) controlados aumentó del 41 al 86%. El resultado del test de control del asma mejoró desde 18,7 ± 4,6 hasta 22,6 ± 2,3 (p < 0,05) y el FEV1 se elevó desde 81,4% ± 17,5 hasta 84,4% ± 16,6 (p < 0,05). Las exacerbaciones, hospitalizaciones y visitas a urgencias disminuyeron un 75, un 78 y un 75%, respectivamente. La utilización de combinaciones CI/LABA decreció del 79,5% al 41%. El uso de otros fármacos aumentó: anticolinérgicos del 3,6 al 16,9%, CI en monoterapia del 3,6 al 45,8%, y omalizumab del 0 al 6%. Las RCEI por paciente controlado y por AVAC ganado fueron de 1.399 y 6.876 €, respectivamente (perspectiva social). CONCLUSIONES: La atención en una UMA es coste-efectiva y tiene un impacto beneficioso sobre el control del asma

INTRODUCTION: Asthma clinics (AC) are hospital outpatient services specialising in the management of asthma. In this study, we analysed the impact of these clinics on asthma management and their cost effectiveness in comparison with standard outpatient services. METHODS: A case cross-over study in which all new patients seen in the AC of Lugo in 2012 were included. The case period was defined as one year following the first visit to the AC; the control period was defined as the preceding year. We calculated changes in clinical quality indicators for asthma management, and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each additional patient treated and for each quality-adjusted life year (QALY) RESULTS: The number of patients (n = 83, mean age 49 ± 15.2 years; 60.2% women) managed in the AC increased from 41% to 86%. The Asthma Control Test score increased from 18.7 ± 4.6 to 22.6 ± 2.3 (p < 0.05) and FEV1 increased from 81.4% ± 17.5 to 84.4% ± 16.6 (p < 0.05). The number of exacerbations, hospitalisations and visits to accident and emergency fell by 75%. The number of patients given combination LABA + ICS therapy fell from 79.5% to 41%. The use of other drug therapy increased: anticholinergics, from 3.6% to 16.9%; ICS in monotherapy, from 3.6% to 45.8%; and omalizumab, from 0% to 6%. ICERs per patient managed and per QALY gained were €1,399 and €6,876, respectively (social perspective). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment in ACs is cost-effective and beneficial in asthma management

Cost Effectiveness of Outpatient Asthma Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma clinics (AC) are hospital outpatient services specialising in the management of asthma. In this study, we analysed the impact of these clinics on asthma management and their cost effectiveness in comparison with standard outpatient services. METHODS: A case cross-over study in which all new patients seen in the AC of Lugo in 2012 were included. The case period was defined as one year following the first visit to the AC; the control period was defined as the preceding year. We calculated changes in clinical quality indicators for asthma management, and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each additional patient treated and for each quality-adjusted life year (QALY) RESULTS: The number of patients (n=83, mean age 49 ± 15.2 years; 60.2% women) managed in the AC increased from 41% to 86%. The Asthma Control Test score increased from 18.7 ± 4.6 to 22.6 ± 2.3 (p<0.05) and FEV1 increased from 81.4% ± 17.5 to 84.4% ± 16.6 (p<0.05). The number of exacerbations, hospitalisations and visits to accident and emergency fell by 75%. The number of patients given combination LABA+ICS therapy fell from 79.5% to 41%. The use of other drug therapy increased: anticholinergics, from 3.6% to 16.9%; ICS in monotherapy, from 3.6% to 45.8%; and omalizumab, from 0% to 6%. ICERs per patient managed and per QALY gained were €1,399 and €6,876, respectively (social perspective). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment in ACs is cost-effective and beneficial in asthma management.