Acts 4:12: No Other Name Under Heaven

This paper, given at the Edinburgh Christology Conference 2002, challenges the reading of Acts 4:12 that supports a restrictive attitude to the possibility of salvation for non-Christians. It first of all sets out what the text does and does not teach, and considers the problems posed by reading it with presuppositions as has frequently been the case. Instead it is proposed that the text be read within its wider context and a case is made for a less restrictive interpretation. The implications of this for a theology of missions are also examined.   [A version of this paper also appeared in Crockett and Sigountos, eds.: Through No Fault of Their Own?: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1991).

Home telemonitoring and remote feedback between clinic visits for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease that causes reversible narrowing of the airways due to bronchoconstriction, inflammation and mucus production. Asthma continues to be associated with significant avoidable morbidity and mortality. Self management facilitated by a healthcare professional is important to keep symptoms controlled and to prevent exacerbations.Telephone and Internet technologies can now be used by patients to measure lung function and asthma symptoms at home. Patients can then share this information electronically with their healthcare provider, who can provide feedback between clinic visits. Technology can be used in this manner to improve health outcomes and prevent the need for emergency treatment for people with asthma and other long-term health conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of home telemonitoring with healthcare professional feedback between clinic visits, compared with usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to May 2016. We also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with asthma in which any form of technology was used to measure and share asthma monitoring data with a healthcare provider between clinic visits, compared with other monitoring or usual care. We excluded trials in which technologies were used for monitoring with no input from a doctor or nurse. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search and independently extracted risk of bias and numerical data, resolving disagreements by consensus.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) while using study participants as the unit of analysis, and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) while using random-effects models. We rated evidence for all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found 18 studies including 2268 participants: 12 in adults, 5 in children and one in individuals from both age groups. Studies generally recruited people with mild to moderate persistent asthma and followed them for between three and 12 months. People in the intervention group were given one of a variety of technologies to record and share their symptoms (text messaging, Web systems or phone calls), compared with a group of people who received usual care or a control intervention.Evidence from these studies did not show clearly whether asthma telemonitoring with feedback from a healthcare professional increases or decreases the odds of exacerbations that require a course of oral steroids (OR 0.93, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.44; 466 participants; four studies), a visit to the emergency department (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 1018 participants; eight studies) or a stay in hospital (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.49; 1042 participants; 10 studies) compared with usual care. Our confidence was limited by imprecision in all three primary outcomes. Evidence quality ratings ranged from moderate to very low. None of the studies recorded serious or non-serious adverse events separately from asthma exacerbations.Evidence for measures of asthma control was imprecise and inconsistent, revealing possible benefit over usual care for quality of life (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; 796 participants; six studies; I(2) = 54%), but the effect was small and study results varied. Telemonitoring interventions may provide additional benefit for two measures of lung function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support the widespread implementation of telemonitoring with healthcare provider feedback between asthma clinic visits. Studies have not yet proven that additional telemonitoring strategies lead to better symptom control or reduced need for oral steroids over usual asthma care, nor have they ruled out unintended harms. Investigators noted small benefits for quality of life, but these are subject to risk of bias, as the studies were unblinded. Similarly, some benefits for lung function are uncertain owing to possible attrition bias.Larger pragmatic studies in children and adults could better determine the real-world benefits of these interventions for preventing exacerbations and avoiding harms; it is difficult to generalise results from this review because benefits may be explained at least in part by the increased attention participants receive by taking part in clinical trials. Qualitative studies could inform future research by focusing on patient and provider preferences, or by identifying subgroups of patients who are more likely to attain benefit from closer monitoring, such as those who have frequent asthma attacks

At-risk registers integrated into primary care to stop asthma crises in the UK (ARRISA-UK): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial with nested health economic and process evaluations

Background: Despite effective treatments and long-standing management guidelines, there are approximately 1400 hospital admissions for asthma weekly in the United Kingdom (UK), many of which could be avoided. In our previous research, a secondary analysis of the intervention (ARRISA) suggested an improvement in the management of at-risk asthma patients in primary care. ARRISA involved identifying individuals at risk of adverse asthma events, flagging their electronic health records, training practice staff to develop and implement practice-wide processes of care when alerted by the flag, plus motivational reminders. We now seek to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ARRISA in reducing asthma-related crisis events. Methods: We are undertaking a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial, plus health economic and process evaluation. We will randomise 270 primary care practices from throughout the UK covering over 10,000 registered patients with ‘at-risk asthma’ identified according to a validated algorithm. Staff in practices randomised to the intervention will complete two 45-min eLearning modules (an individually completed module giving background to ARRISA and a group-completed module to develop practice-wide pathways of care) plus a 30-min webinar with other practices. On completion of training at-risk patients’ records will be coded so that a flag appears whenever their record is accessed. Practices will receive a phone call at 4 weeks and a reminder video at 6 weeks and 6 months. Control practices will continue to provide usual care. We will extract anonymised routine patient data from primary care records (with linkage to secondary care data) to determine the percentage of at-risk patients with an asthma-related crisis event (accident and emergency attendances, hospitalisations and deaths) after 12 months (primary outcome). We will also capture the time to crisis event, all-cause hospitalisations, asthma control and any changes in practice asthma management for at-risk and all patients with asthma. Cost-effectiveness analysis and mixed-methods process evaluations will also be conducted. Discussion: This study is novel in terms of using a practice-wide intervention to target and engage with patients at risk from their asthma and is innovative in the use of routinely captured data with record linkage to obtain trial outcomes. Trial registration: ISRCTN95472706. Registered on 5 December 2014

Predicting asthma-related crisis events using routine electronic healthcare data

Background There is no published algorithm predicting asthma crisis events (accident and emergency [A&E] attendance, hospitalisation, or death) using routinely available electronic health record (EHR) data. Aim To develop an algorithm to identify individuals at high risk of an asthma crisis event. Design and setting Database analysis from primary care EHRs of people with asthma across England and Scotland. Method Multivariable logistic regression was applied to a dataset of 61 861 people with asthma from England and Scotland using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. External validation was performed using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank of 174 240 patients from Wales. Outcomes were ≥1 hospitalisation (development dataset) and asthma-related hospitalisation, A&E attendance, or death (validation dataset) within a 12-month period. Results Risk factors for asthma-related crisis events included previous hospitalisation, older age, underweight, smoking, and blood eosinophilia. The prediction algorithm had acceptable predictive ability with a receiver operating characteristic of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70 to 0.72) in the validation dataset. Using a cut-point based on the 7% of the population at greatest risk results in a positive predictive value of 5.7% (95% CI = 5.3% to 6.1%) and a negative predictive value of 98.9% (95% CI = 98.9% to 99.0%), with sensitivity of 28.5% (95% CI = 26.7% to 30.3%) and specificity of 93.3% (95% CI = 93.2% to 93.4%); those individuals had an event risk of 6.0% compared with 1.1% for the remaining population. In total, 18 people would need to be followed to identify one admission. Conclusion This externally validated algorithm has acceptable predictive ability for identifying patients at high risk of asthma-related crisis events and excluding those not at high risk

Patient-reported barriers to accepting a technological adherence package in the MAGNIFY trial.

Peer reviewedPostprin

Maximizing Adherence and Gaining New Information For Your Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (MAGNIFY COPD):Study Protocol for the Pragmatic, Cluster Randomized Trial Evaluating the Impact of Dual Bronchodilator with Add-On Sensor and Electronic Monitoring on Clinical Outcomes

Background: Poor treatment adherence in COPD patients is associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased healthcare burden. Personalized approaches for adherence management, supported with technology-based interventions, may offer benefits to patients and providers but are currently unproven in terms of clinical outcomes as opposed to adherence outcomes. Methods: Maximizing Adherence and Gaining New Information For Your COPD (MAGNIFY COPD study), a pragmatic cluster randomized trial, aims to evaluate the impact of an adherence technology package (interventional package), comprising an adherence review, ongoing provision of a dual bronchodilator but with an add-on inhaler sensor device and a connected mobile application. This will compare time to treatment failure and other clinical outcomes in patients identified at high risk of exacerbations with historic poor treatment adherence as measured by prescription collection to mono/dual therapy over one year (1312 patients) versus usual care. Treatment failure is defined as the first occurrence of one of the following: (1) moderate/severe COPD exacerbation, (2) prescription of triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist [ICS/LABA/LAMA]), (3) prescription of additional chronic therapy for COPD, or (4) respiratory-related death. Adherence, moderate/severe exacerbations, respiratory-related healthcare resource utilization and costs, and intervention package acceptance rate will also be assessed. Eligible primary care practices (N=176) participating in the Optimum Patient Care Quality Improvement Program will be randomized (1:1) to either adherence support cluster arm (suitable patients already receiving or initiated Ultibro® Breezhaler® [indacaterol/glycopyrronium] will be offered interventional package) or the control cluster arm (suitable patients continue to receive usual clinical care). Patients will be identified and outcomes collected from anonymized electronic medical records within the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. On study completion, electronic medical record data will be re-extracted to analyze outcomes in both study groups. Registration Number: ISRCTN10567920. Conclusion: MAGNIFY will explore patient benefits of technology-based interventions for electronic adherence monitoring

Remote versus face-to-face check-ups for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma remains a significant cause of avoidable morbidity and mortality. Regular check-ups with a healthcare professional are essential to monitor symptoms and adjust medication.Health services worldwide are considering telephone and internet technologies as a way to manage the rising number of people with asthma and other long-term health conditions. This may serve to improve health and reduce the burden on emergency and inpatient services. Remote check-ups may represent an unobtrusive and efficient way of maintaining contact with patients, but it is uncertain whether conducting check-ups in this way is effective or whether it may have unexpected negative consequences. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of conducting asthma check-ups remotely versus usual face-to-face consultations. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to 24 November 2015. We also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, reference lists of other reviews and contacted trial authors for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with asthma that compared remote check-ups conducted using any form of technology versus standard face-to-face consultations. We excluded studies that used automated telehealth interventions that did not include personalised contact with a health professional. We included studies reported as full-text articles, as abstracts only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the literature search results and independently extracted risk of bias and numerical data. We resolved any disagreements by consensus, and we contacted study authors for missing information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis, and continuous data as mean differences using the random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies including a total of 2100 participants met the inclusion criteria: we pooled four studies including 792 people in the main efficacy analyses, and presented the results of a cluster implementation study (n = 1213) and an oral steroid tapering study (n = 95) separately. Baseline characteristics relating to asthma severity were variable, but studies generally recruited people with asthma taking regular medications and excluded those with COPD or severe asthma. One study compared the two types of check-up for oral steroid tapering in severe refractory asthma and we assessed it as a separate question. The studies could not be blinded and dropout was high in four of the six studies, which may have biased the results.We could not say whether more people who had a remote check-up needed oral corticosteroids for an asthma exacerbation than those who were seen face-to-face because the confidence intervals (CIs) were very wide (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.44; 278 participants; one study; low quality evidence). In the face-to-face check-up groups, 21 participants out of 1000 had exacerbations that required oral steroids over three months, compared to 36 (95% CI nine to 139) out of 1000 for the remote check-up group. Exacerbations that needed treatment in the Emergency Department (ED), hospital admission or an unscheduled healthcare visit all happened too infrequently to detect whether remote check-ups are a safe alternative to face-to-face consultations. Serious adverse events were not reported separately from the exacerbation outcomes.There was no difference in asthma control measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) or in quality of life measured on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) between remote and face-to-face check-ups. We could rule out significant harm of remote check-ups for these outcomes but we were less confident because these outcomes are more prone to bias from lack of blinding.The larger implementation study that compared two general practice populations demonstrated that offering telephone check-ups and proactively phoning participants increased the number of people with asthma who received a review. However, we do not know whether the additional participants who had a telephone check-up subsequently benefited in asthma outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current randomised evidence does not demonstrate any important differences between face-to-face and remote asthma check-ups in terms of exacerbations, asthma control or quality of life. There is insufficient information to rule out differences in efficacy, or to say whether or not remote asthma check-ups are a safe alternative to being seen face-to-face