Internet-based home monitoring and education of children with asthma is comparable to ideal office-based care: results of a 1-year asthma in-home monitoring trial.

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to determine whether home asthma telemonitoring with store-and-forward technology improved outcomes, compared with in-person, office-based visits. METHODS: A total of 120 patients, 6 to 17 years of age, with persistent asthma were assigned randomly to the office-based or virtual group. The 2 groups followed the same ambulatory clinical pathway for 12 months. Office-based group patients received traditional in-person education and case management. Virtual group patients received computers, Internet connections, and in-home, Internet-based case management and received education through the study Web site. Disease control outcome measures included quality of life, utilization of services, and symptom control. RESULTS: A total of 120 volunteers (45 female) were enrolled. The groups were clinically comparable (office-based: 22 female/38 male; mean age: 9.0 +/- 3.0 years; virtual: 23 female/37 male; mean age: 10.2 +/- 3.1 years). Virtual patients had higher metered-dose inhaler with valved holding chamber technique scores than did the office-based group at 52 weeks (94% vs 89%), had greater adherence to daily asthma symptom diary submission (35.4% vs 20.8%), had less participant time (636 vs 713 patient-months), and were older. Caregivers in both groups perceived an increase in quality of life and an increase in asthma knowledge scores from baseline. There were no other differences in therapeutic or disease control outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual group patients achieved excellent asthma therapeutic and disease control outcomes. Compared with those who received standardized office-based care, they were more adherent to diary submission and had better inhaler scores at 52 weeks. Store-and-forward telemedicine technology and case management provide additional tools to assist in the management of children with persistent asthma.

Concurrent use of metered-dose and dry powder inhalers by children with persistent asthma does not adversely affect spacer/inhaler technique.

BACKGROUND: Studies conducted in adults have suggested that patients who use a metered-dose inhaler/holding chamber spacer (MDI/S) and dry powder inhaler (DPI) concurrently will have poorer MDI/S technique than that of patients who use MDI/S exclusively. To our knowledge, as of August 31, 2006, no studies have been performed in pediatric patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare MDI/S technique scores of children using only MDI/S with scores of those using both MDI/S and DPIs. METHODS: The MDI/S technique of children aged 6-17 years, with persistent asthma, recruited from a general pediatric practice population for an asthma intervention study project was scored using a standardized checklist. MDI/S scores of children who were being treated with maintenance and rescue medication delivered only by MDI/S were compared with those treated with both MDI/S (rescue) and DPI (maintenance). Scores lower than 70% were considered to be inadequate. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (73 male, 44 female), aged 9.70 +/- 3.1 years (mean +/- SD), with persistent asthma, participated in the study. There were 83 children (54 male, 29 female, age 9.4 +/- 3.2 y) in the MDI/S only group and 34 (19 male, 15 female, age 10.3 +/- 2.9 y) in the MDI/S + DPI group. In the MDI/S + DPI group, Diskus was the DPI used for 32 patients, and Turbuhaler was used by 2 children. Sixteen patients had severe persistent asthma, 80 had moderate persistent asthma, and 21 had mild persistent asthma as classified by National Heart Lung and Blood Institute guidelines. No difference in sex and age demographics existed; however, there was a difference in the distribution of asthma severity between groups (ie, no patients with mild persistent asthma in the MDI/S + DPI group; p < or = 0.01). Mean score for the MDI/S only group was 86 +/- 17% and, for the MDI/S + DPI group, 90.1 +/- 12% (p = 0.15). More patients in the MDI/S group had inadequate scores (18%) compared with those in the MDI/S + DPI group (3%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While DPI and MDI/S techniques are markedly different in several significant ways, concurrent use of these inhalers did not adversely affect MDI/S technique scores of pediatric patients with persistent asthma, compared with those using MDI/S alone. Patients in the MDI/S only group had an inadequate MDI/S score (<70%) more often than did patients in the MDI/S + DPI group.