Predicting asthma in preschool children at high risk presenting in primary care: Development of a clinical asthma prediction score

Background: A setting-specific asthma prediction score for preschool children with wheezing and/or dyspnoea presenting in primary healthcare is needed since existing indices are mainly based on general populations. Aims: To find an optimally informative yet practical set of predictors for the prediction of asthma in preschool children at high risk who present in primary healthcare. Methods: A total of 771 Dutch preschool children at high risk of asthma were followed prospectively until the age of six years. Data on asthma symptoms and environmental conditions were obtained using validated questionnaires and specific IgE was measured. At the age of six years the presence of asthma was assessed based on asthma symptoms, medication, and bronchial hyper-responsiveness. A clinical asthma prediction score (CAPS) was developed using bootstrapped multivariable regression methods. Results: In all, 438 children (56.8%) completed the study; the asthma prevalence at six years was 42.7%. Five parameters optimally predicted asthma: age, family history of asthma or allergy, wheezing-induced sleep disturbances, wheezing in the absence of common colds, and specific IgE. CAPS scores range from 0 to 11 points; scores <3 signified a negative predictive value of 78.4% while scores of ≥7 signified a positive predictive value of 74.3%. Conclusions: We have developed an easy-to-use CAPS for preschool children with symptoms suggesting asthma who present in primary healthcare. After suitable validation, the CAPS may assist in guiding shared decision-making to tailor the need for medical or non-medical interventions. External validation of the CAPS is needed

A systematic review with attempted network meta-analysis of asthma therapy recommended for five to eighteen year olds in GINA steps three and four

Background: The recommendations for the treatment of moderate persistent asthma in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for paediatric asthma are mainly based on scientific evidence extrapolated from studies in adults or on consensus. Furthermore, clinical decision-making would benefit from formal ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness.Our objective is to assess all randomized trial-based evidence specifically pertaining to 5-18 year olds with moderate persistent asthma. Rank the different drug treatments of GINA guideline steps 3&4 in terms of effectiveness.Methods: Systematic review with network meta-analysis. After a comprehensive search in Central, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO search portal two reviewers selected RCTs performed in 4,129 children from 5-18 year old, with moderate persistent asthma comparing any GINA step 3&4 medication options. Further quality was assessed according the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and data-extracted included papers and built a network of the trials. Attempt at ranking treatments with formal statistical methods employing direct and indirect (e.g. through placebo) connections between all treatments.Results: 8,175 references were screened; 23 randomized trials (RCT), comparing head-to-head (n=17) or against placebo (n=10), met the inclusion criteria. Except for theophylline as add-on therapy in step 4, a closed network allowed all comparisons to be made, either directly or indirectly. Huge variation in, and incomplete reporting of, outcome measurements across RCTs precluded assessment of relative efficacies.Conclusion: Evidence-based ranking of effectiveness of drug treatments in GINA steps 3&4 is not possible yet. Existing initiatives for harmonization of outcome measurements in asthma trials need urgent implementation

Paediatric asthma outpatient care by asthma nurse, paediatrician or general practitioner: Randomised controlled trial with two-year follow-up

Aims: For children with stable asthma, to test non-inferiority of care provided by a hospital-based specialised asthma nurse versus a general practitioner (GP) or paediatrician. Methods: Randomised controlled trial evaluating standard care by a GP, paediatrician or an asthma nurse, with two-year follow-up. Results: 107 children were recruited, 45 from general practice and 62 from hospital. After two years, no significant differences between groups were found for airway responsiveness, FEV1, asthma control, medication, school absence or parental work absence. In the general practice group there was a significantly lower frequency of regular review visits ('regular' = at least one review per six months) compared to the paediatrician and specialised asthma nurse group, both after one year [45.7% versus 87.9% and 94.3%, respectively, (p<0.0005)] and after two years [26.5% versus 87.9% and 75.8%, respectively, (p<0.0005)]. We found no significant differences in unplanned visits. In most cases the asthma nurse was able to provide care without consultation with the paediatrician. Conclusion: The degree of disease control in stable childhood asthma managed by an asthma nurse is not inferior to traditional management by primary or secondary care physicians. The results also suggest that a lower review frequency does not detract from good disease control