Eric D. Bateman

Asthma is a serious health problem throughout the world. During the past two decades, many scientific advances have improved our understanding of asthma and ability to manage and control it effectively. However, recommendations for asthma care need to be adapted to local conditions, resources and services. Since it was formed in 1993, the Global Initiative for Asthma, a network of individuals, organisations and public health officials, has played a leading role in disseminating information about the care of patients with asthma based on a process of continuous review of published scientific investigations. A comprehensive workshop report entitled “A Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention”, first published in 1995, has been widely adopted, translated and reproduced, and forms the basis for many national guidelines. The 2006 report contains important new themes. First, it asserts that “it is reasonable to expect that in most patients with asthma, control of the disease can and should be achieved and maintained,” and recommends a change in approach to asthma management, with asthma control, rather than asthma severity, being the focus of treatment decisions. The importance of the patient–care giver partnership and guided self-management, along with setting goals for treatment, are also emphasised.

A global definition of asthma control does not currently exist. The purpose of this study was to validate two new guideline-based composite measures of asthma control, defined as totally controlled (TC) asthma and well controlled (WC) asthma.

Background: Using a composite measure based on clinical outcomes, the GOAL study showed that achievement of Total Control of asthma was time dependent with the proportion of controlled patients continuing to rise through the year-long study. Taking data from this study, we compared time taken to achieve Total Control with time taken to achieve total control of each individual clinical criterion on treatment with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) or fluticasone propionate (FP) alone. Methods: Time to achieving total control of individual outcomes (day-time symptoms, night-time awakenings, rescue medication use, PEF ≥80% predicted every day) were analyzed by Kaplan Meier plots and compared with achievement of composite Total Control. Results: Night-time awakenings responded most rapidly and daytime symptoms took longest to respond. After 12 weeks, the proportion of patients who achieved control of any individual clinical criterion was higher than the proportion who achieved control when using the composite outcome (no night-time awakenings achieved by 73% with SFC and 65% with FP; PEF ≥80% predicted every day, 55% and 45% respectively; no rescue usage 46% and 35% respectively; and no daytime symptoms, 35% and 24% respectively, compared with Total Control, 23% and 14% respectively). In every measure except night-time awakenings, more rapid responses were seen for SFC compared with FP alone. Conclusions: Speed of response of individual asthma measures varies and evaluation of control using any single measure overestimates total asthma control. Treatment should be continued until composite control is reached, rather than control of individual outcomes.

The present study examined the association between guideline-derived asthma control and health-related quality of life, assessed using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), in patients with uncontrolled asthma whose treatment was directed towards achieving the highest possible level of control.The present randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the efficacy of fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) in achieving two composite, guideline-derived measures of control: total control (TC) and well-controlled (WC) asthma. Not achieving these levels was classed as not well-controlled (NWC). Doses were augmented until patients achieved TC or reached the maximum dose. This dose was maintained for the remainder of the study. AQLQ was assessed at baseline and at each clinic visit.AQLQ scores improved throughout the study, reaching near-maximal levels in patients achieving TC and WC, and 52-week mean scores in the three control groups were statistically significantly different. Clinically meaningful improvements (mean change from baseline) were: TC group (SFC 1.9, FP 1.8), WC (SFC 1.5, FP 1.5) and NWC (SFC 1.0, FP 0.9).In conclusion, the treatment aimed at controlling asthma improves the health-related quality of life to levels approaching normal. The difference in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores between total control and well-controlled confirms that patients distinguish even between these high levels of control.

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the integrated Practical Approach to Lung Health in South Africa (PALSA) guideline in identifying patients requiring bacteriological screening for tuberculosis (TB), and to determine which clinical features best predict suspected and bacteriologically-confirmed tuberculosis among patients with respiratory symptoms. A prospective, cross-sectional study in which 1392 adult patients with cough and/or difficult breathing, attending a primary care facility in Cape Town, South Africa, were evaluated by a nurse using the guideline. The accuracy of a nurse using the guideline to identify TB suspects was compared to that of primary care physicians' diagnoses of (1) suspected TB, and (2) proven TB supported by clinical information and chest radiographs. The nurse using the guideline identified 516 patients as TB suspects compared with 365 by the primary care physicians, representing a sensitivity of 76% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71%–79%), specificity of 77% (95% CI 74%–79%), positive predictive value of 53% (95% CI 49%–58%), negative predictive value of 90% (95% CI 88%–92%), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ARUC) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.74–0.79). Sputum results were obtained in 320 of the 365 primary care physicians TB suspects (88%); 40 (13%) of these were positive for TB. Only 4 cases were not identified by the nurse using the guideline. The primary care physicians diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing bacteriologically-confirmed TB (n = 320) was as follows: sensitivity 90% (95% CI 76%–97%), specificity 65% (95% CI 63%–68%), negative predictive value 7% (95% CI 5%–10%), positive predictive value 99.5% (95% CI 98.8%–99.8%), and ARUC 0.78 (95% CI 0.73–0.82). Weight loss, pleuritic pain, and night sweats were independently associated with the diagnosis of bacteriologically-confirmed tuberculosis (positive likelihood ratio if all three present = 16.7, 95% CI 5.9–29.4). The PALSA guideline is an effective screening tool for identifying patients requiring bacteriological screening for pulmonary tuberculosis in this primary care setting. This supports the randomized trial finding that use of the guideline increased TB case detection.

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort^®) with formoterol (Oxis^®) in the treatment of patients with acute asthma who showed evidence of refractoriness to short-acting β₂-agonist therapy.Methods: In a 3 hour, randomized, double-blind study, a total of 115 patients with acute asthma (mean FEV₁40% of predicted normal) and a refractory response to salbutamol (mean reversibility 2% of predicted normal after inhalation of 400 μg), were randomized to receive either budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg, 2 inhalations at t = -5 minutes and 2 inhalations at 0 minutes [total dose 1280/36 μg]) or formoterol (9 μg, 2 inhalations at t = -5 minutes and 2 inhalations at 0 minutes [total dose 36 μg]). The primary efficacy variable was the average FEV₁from the first intake of study medication to the measurement at 90 minutes. Secondary endpoints included changes in FEV₁at other timepoints and change in respiratory rate at 180 minutes. Treatment success, treatment failure and patient assessment of the effectiveness of the study medication were also measured.Results: FEV₁increased after administration of the study medication in both treatment groups. No statistically significant difference between the treatment groups was apparent for the primary outcome variable, or for any of the other efficacy endpoints. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for treatment success, treatment failure or patient assessment of medication effectiveness. Both treatments were well tolerated.Conclusion: Budesonide/formoterol and formoterol provided similarly rapid relief of acute bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma who showed evidence of refractoriness to a short-acting β₂-agonist.