Distinguishing Asthma Phenotypes Using Machine Learning Approaches.

Asthma is not a single disease, but an umbrella term for a number of distinct diseases, each of which are caused by a distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanism. These discrete disease entities are often labelled as asthma endotypes. The discovery of different asthma subtypes has moved from subjective approaches in which putative phenotypes are assigned by experts to data-driven ones which incorporate machine learning. This review focuses on the methodological developments of one such machine learning technique-latent class analysis-and how it has contributed to distinguishing asthma and wheezing subtypes in childhood. It also gives a clinical perspective, presenting the findings of studies from the past 5 years that used this approach. The identification of true asthma endotypes may be a crucial step towards understanding their distinct pathophysiological mechanisms, which could ultimately lead to more precise prevention strategies, identification of novel therapeutic targets and the development of effective personalized therapies

Partner randomized controlled trial: study protocol and coaching intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many children with asthma live with frequent symptoms and activity limitations, and visits for urgent care are common. Many pediatricians do not regularly meet with families to monitor asthma control, identify concerns or problems with management, or provide self-management education. Effective interventions to improve asthma care such as small group training and care redesign have been difficult to disseminate into office practice.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>This paper describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a 12-month telephone-coaching program designed to support primary care management of children with persistent asthma and subsequently to improve asthma control and disease-related quality of life and reduce urgent care events for asthma care. Randomization occurred at the practice level with eligible families within a practice having access to the coaching program or to usual care. The coaching intervention was based on the transtheoretical model of behavior change. Targeted behaviors included 1) effective use of controller medications, 2) effective use of rescue medications and 3) monitoring to ensure optimal control. Trained lay coaches provided parents with education and support for asthma care, tailoring the information provided and frequency of contact to the parent's readiness to change their child's day-to-day asthma management. Coaching calls varied in frequency from weekly to monthly. For each participating family, follow-up measurements were obtained at 12- and 24-months after enrollment in the study during a telephone interview.</p> <p>The primary outcomes were the mean change in 1) the child's asthma control score, 2) the parent's quality of life score, and 3) the number of urgent care events assessed at 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes reflected adherence to guideline recommendations by the primary care pediatricians and included the proportion of children prescribed controller medications, having maintenance care visits at least twice a year, and an asthma action plan. Cost-effectiveness of the intervention was also measured.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Twenty-two practices (66 physicians) were randomized (11 per treatment group), and 950 families with a child 3-12 years old with persistent asthma were enrolled. A description of the coaching intervention is presented.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00860834">NCT00860834</a>.</p

Controversies in the Use of MIGS

Abstract Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) has fulfilled an unmet need in the management of glaucoma. This chapter highlights some controversial issues regarding the use of MIGS in clinical practice, including (1) whether there is sufficient evidence to advocate combining MIGS with cataract surgery over cataract surgery alone, (2) the merits and drawbacks of different approaches to trabecular bypass and canal-based MIGS procedures, (3) the effect of MIGS on endothelial cell loss, (4) suprachoroidal MIGS devices and whether there is still a role for these procedures, and (5) a comparison between subconjunctival MIGS and trabeculectomy. Several questions are still left unanswered and hopefully, further research and more clinical experience with these new technologies will help improve surgical outcomes for patients