Respir Investig. 2021 Jun 20:S2212-5345(21)00081-2. doi: 10.1016/j.resinv.2021.05.001. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Asthma patients often feel satisfied with their current treatment, even when they have been diagnosed as uncontrolled by physicians. The present study investigated the differences in the evaluation of asthma control levels between patients and physicians, and the prediction of future risks.
METHODS: Asthma patients receiving inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-2 agonists for 4 weeks or more were enrolled and followed-up for 24 weeks. Asthma control levels were evaluated using the following guidelines: Asthma Prevention and Management Guideline, Japan (JGL) and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) by physicians, and the Japan Asthma Control Survey (JACS) and a 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ6) by patients, at weeks 0 and 24. Analysis for predictive factors influencing exacerbation was performed using JGL, GINA, JACS, and ACQ6 at week 0.
RESULTS: A total of 420 patients were enrolled. Comparison of the distribution of asthma control levels assessed by physicians and patients showed no statistically significant difference between JGL and JACS (P = 0.19), suggesting a symmetric distribution, while ACQ6 demonstrated a significant difference versus JGL and GINA (both P < 0.001). The predictive factors for exacerbation were unscheduled visits based on GINA (rate ratio; 0.25, 95% CI; 0.14, 0.44), and the use of oral steroids on 3 consecutive days based on JGL (rate ratio; 0.42, 95% CI 0.22, 0.82) and JACS (rate ratio; 0.22, 95% CI; 0.13, 0,40).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that evaluation based on treatment guidelines and the questionnaire validated according to the local treatment guidelines is important for improved assessment of asthma control levels and the reduction of future risk.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000030419.
PMID:34162527 | DOI:10.1016/j.resinv.2021.05.001
