Practice patterns for oral corticosteroid burst therapy in the outpatient management of acute asthma exacerbations

The use of a short course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), or "steroid burst," is standard practice in the outpatient management of acute severe exacerbations of asthma. Despite published guidelines, the actual practice patterns are unknown. A Web-based survey about typical patterns of OCS administration and total steroid burst dose was administered to pulmonologists (n = 150), allergists (n = 150), primary care physicians (n = 153), and pediatricians (n = 150). No predominant dosing regimen was observed, although a fixed single daily dose was the most commonly prescribed regimen (59%). The majority of physicians treating patients ≥12 years of age prescribed a total burst dose of ≤200 mg and essentially all (99.7%) prescribed ≤600 mg. Among physicians treating younger children, approximately one-quarter prescribed ≤1 mg/kg per day for 3 days (27.8% for children aged 5-11 years of age and 28.1% for children aged <5 years, respectively) and essentially all prescribed ≤2 mg/kg per day for 10 days (99.8% for children aged 5-11 years and 100% for children aged <5 years of age). When prescribing OCS burst therapy for asthma exacerbations, physicians tend to prescribe less than the upper dose recommended in the guidelines; with many physicians prescribing a total steroid burst dose below the lower end of the recommended dose range. Additional study is needed to determine the optimal dose and duration for treating exacerbations of asthma with OCS to minimize both side effects and time to reestablishing asthma control.     

Development and cross-sectional validation of the Childhood Asthma Control Test

BACKGROUND: For children younger than 12 years old with asthma, there are several quality-of-life instruments, clinical diaries, and questionnaires assessing symptoms; however, a validated tool for assessing asthma control is currently lacking. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT), a self-administered tool for identifying children aged 4-11 years whose asthma is inadequately controlled. METHODS: A 21-item questionnaire was administered to 343 patients with asthma and their caregivers, randomly assigning 75% (n = 257) for development and cross-sectional validation of the tool and 25% (n = 86) to a confirmatory sample. Stepwise logistic regression was used to reduce the 21 items to those best able to discriminate control as defined by the specialist's rating of asthma control. RESULTS: Seven items were selected from regression analyses of the development sample to comprise the C-ACT. The scores of each item were summed for a total score (0-27), with lower scores indicating poorer control. Summed scores discriminated between groups of patients differing in the specialists' rating of asthma control (F = 36.89; P < .0001), the need for change in patients' therapy (F = 20.07; P < .0001), and % predicted FEV(1) (F = 2.66; P = .0494). A score of 19 indicated inadequately controlled asthma (specificity 74%, sensitivity 68%). These analyses were confirmed in the confirmatory sample. CONCLUSION: The C-ACT is a validated tool to assess asthma control and identify children with inadequately controlled asthma. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The C-ACT can be valuable in clinical practice and research based on its validation, ease of use, input from the child and caregiver, and alignment with asthma guidelines.     

Therapeutic problem solving: a systematic approach.

A systematic approach to therapeutic problem solving is discussed. Therapeutic problem solving includes defining the problem, assessing possible solutions to the problem and choosing the best solution (therapy). The thought processes specific to drug therapy include: (1) choice of agent, (2) evaluation of benefit versus risk ratios, and (3) determination of dosage. Once treatment has been initiated, the problem-solving process shifts to reassessing the patient, monitoring and readjusting therapy, and anticipating new problems related to therapy. An algorithm is provided to demonstrate a thought sequence for solving therapeutic problems. To assure that no important consideration has been neglected, it is useful to develop a pattern of thought that may be applied to each therapeutic situation.     

Characterization of within-subject responses to fluticasone and montelukast in childhood asthma

BACKGROUND: Responses to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) vary among asthmatic patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether responses to ICSs and LTRAs are concordant for individuals or whether asthmatic patients who do not respond to one medication respond to the other. METHODS: Children 6 to 17 years of age with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to one of 2 crossover sequences, including 8 weeks of an ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 microg twice daily), and 8 weeks of an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly depending on age), in a multicenter, double-masked, 18-week trial. Response was assessed on the basis of improvement in FEV 1 and assessed for relationships to baseline asthma phenotype-associated biomarkers. RESULTS: Defining response as improvement in FEV 1 of 7.5% or greater, 17% of 126 participants responded to both medications, 23% responded to fluticasone alone, 5% responded to montelukast alone, and 55% responded to neither medication. Compared with those who responded to neither medication, favorable response to fluticasone alone was associated with higher levels of exhaled nitric oxide, total eosinophil counts, levels of serum IgE, and levels of serum eosinophil cationic protein and lower levels of methacholine PC(20) and pulmonary function; favorable response to montelukast alone was associated with younger age and shorter disease duration. Greater differential response to fluticasone over montelukast was associated with higher bronchodilator use, bronchodilator response, exhaled nitric oxide levels, and eosinophil cationic protein levels and lower methacholine PC(20) and pulmonary function values. CONCLUSIONS: Response to fluticasone and montelukast vary considerably. Children with low pulmonary function or high levels of markers associated with allergic inflammation should receive ICS therapy. Other children could receive either ICSs or LTRAs.