Seguimiento de las guías españolas para el manejo del asma por el médico de atención primaria: un estudio observacional ambispectivo

Objetivo Evaluar el grado de seguimiento de las recomendaciones de las versiones de la Guía española para el manejo del asma (GEMA 2009 y 2015) y su repercusión en el control de la enfermedad. Material y métodos Estudio observacional y ambispectivo realizado entre septiembre del 2015 y abril del 2016, en el que participaron 314 médicos de atención primaria y 2.864 pacientes. Resultados Utilizando datos retrospectivos, 81 de los 314 médicos (25, 8% [IC del 95%, 21, 3 a 30, 9]) comunicaron seguir las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2009. Al inicio del estudio, 88 de los 314 médicos (28, 0% [IC del 95%, 23, 4 a 33, 2]) seguían las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015. El tener un asma mal controlada (OR 0, 19, IC del 95%, 0, 13 a 0, 28) y presentar un asma persistente grave al inicio del estudio (OR 0, 20, IC del 95%, 0, 12 a 0, 34) se asociaron negativamente con tener un asma bien controlada al final del seguimiento. Por el contrario, el seguimiento de las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015 se asoció de manera positiva con una mayor posibilidad de que el paciente tuviera un asma bien controlada al final del periodo de seguimiento (OR 1, 70, IC del 95%, 1, 40 a 2, 06). Conclusiones El escaso seguimiento de las guías clínicas para el manejo del asma constituye un problema común entre los médicos de atención primaria. Un seguimiento de estas guías se asocia con un control mejor del asma. Existe la necesidad de actuaciones que puedan mejorar el seguimiento por parte de los médicos de atención primaria de las guías para el manejo del asma. Objective: To assess the degree of compliance with the recommendations of the 2009 and 2015 versions of the Spanish guidelines for managing asthma (Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma [GEMA]) and the effect of this compliance on controlling the disease. Material and methods: We conducted an observational ambispective study between September 2015 and April 2016 in which 314 primary care physicians and 2864 patients participated. Results: Using retrospective data, we found that 81 of the 314 physicians (25.8%; 95% CI 21.3–30.9) stated that they complied with the GEMA2009 recommendations. At the start of the study, 88 of the 314 physicians (28.0%; 95% CI 23.4–33.2) complied with the GEMA2015 recommendations. Poorly controlled asthma (OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.13–0.28) and persistent severe asthma at the start of the study (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.12–0.34) were negatively associated with having well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up. In contrast, compliance with the GEMA2015 recommendations was positively associated with a greater likelihood that the patient would have well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up (OR, 1.70; 95% CI 1.40–2.06). Conclusions: Low compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma is a common problem among primary care physicians. Compliance with these guidelines is associated with better asthma control. Actions need to be taken to improve primary care physician compliance with the asthma management guidelines

Microbiota in health and disease: From pregnancy to childhood

Item does not contain fulltext344 p

A Personalization Environment for Multi-Version Clinical Guidelines

In this work, we introduce a personalization environment for the representation and efficient management of multi-version clinical guidelines. The environment is composed of an XML repository accessed through a personalization engine, which uses temporal perspective, patient profile and context information to reconstruct a guideline version tailored to a specific use case. In particular, we apply and extend to clinical guidelines solutions we previously developed for norm texts in the legal domain, and show how multi-version representation capabilities and personalization query facilities can be added to their management

Pediatric asthma: An unmet need for more effective, focused treatments

Background: Despite remarkable advances in our understanding of asthma, there are still several unmet needs associated with the management of pediatric asthma. Methods: A two-day, face-to-face meeting was held in London, United Kingdom, on October 28 and 29, 2017, involving a group of international expert clinicians and scientists in asthma management to discuss the challenges and unmet needs that remain to be addressed in pediatric asthma. Results: These unmet needs include a lack of clinical efficacy and safety evidence, and limited availability of non-steroid-based alternative therapies in patients <6 years of age. An increased focus on children is needed in the context of clinical practice guidelines for asthma; current pediatric practice relies mostly on extrapolations from adult recommendations. Furthermore, no uniform definition of pediatric asthma exists, which hampers timely and robust diagnosis of the condition in affected patients. Conclusions: There is a need for a uniform definition of pediatric asthma, clearly distinguishable from adult asthma. Furthermore, guidelines which provide specific treatment recommendations for the management of pediatric asthma are also needed. Clinical trials and real-world evidence studies assessing anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) therapies and other monoclonal antibodies in children <6 years of age with asthma may provide further information regarding the most appropriate treatment options in these vulnerable patients. Early intervention with anti-IgE and non-steroid-based alternative therapies may delay disease progression, leading to improved clinical outcomes. © 2018 The Authors. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology Published by John Wiley & Sons Lt