Peak flow based asthma self-management: a randomised controlled study in general practice. British Thoracic Society Research Committee. Benefit from the inclusion of self-treatment guidelines to a self-management programme for adults with asthma. The effects of a cognitive behavioural intervention in asthmatic patients. A controlled assessment of an asthma self-management plan involving a budesonide dose regimen. OPTIONS Research Group. Evaluation of two different educational interventions for adult patients consulting with an acute asthma exacerbation. One-year economic evaluation of intensive vs conventional patient education and supervision for self-management of new asthmatic patients. Influence of peak expiratory flow monitoring on an asthma self-management education programme. A randomized trial comparing peak expiratory flow and symptom self-management plans for patients with asthma attending a primary care clinic. Evaluation of peak flow and symptoms only self management plans for control of asthma in general practice. A randomized trial of peak-flow and symptom-based action plans in adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. Influence on asthma morbidity of asthma education programs based on self-management plans following treatment optimization. Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year. The effect of a peak flow-based action plan in the prevention of exacerbations of asthma. Effectiveness of routine self monitoring of peak flow in patients with asthma. Grampian Asthma Study of Integrated Care (GRASSIC).
Peak flow based asthma self-management plans have been strongly advocated in consensus statements, but convincing evidence for the effectiveness of this approach has been largely lacking.
                A randomised controlled trial was conducted in 25 general practices comparing an asthma self-management programme based on home peak flow monitoring and surgery review by a general practitioner or practice nurse with a programme of planned visits for surgery review only over a six month period.
                Seventy two subjects (33 in the self-management group and 39 in the planned visit group) completed the study protocol, but diary card data for at least three months were available on a total of 84 (39 in the self-management group and 45 in the planned visit group). Teaching self-management took longer than the planned visit review. In the self-management group home peak flow monitoring was felt to be useful by doctors and patients in 28 (85%) and 27 (82%) cases, respectively. There were no between group differences during the study period in terms of lung function, symptoms, quality of life, and prescribing costs. Only within the self-management group were improvements noted in disturbance of daily activities and quality of life. Possible explanations for these negative results include small numbers of subjects, the mild nature of their asthma, and inappropriate self-management strategies for such patients.
                Rigid adherence to long term daily peak flow measurement in the management of mild asthma in general practice does not appear to produce large changes in outcomes. Self-management and the use of prescribed peak flow meters need to be tailored to individual circumstances. This study assessed the long-term efficacy of adding self-treatment guidelines to a self-management programme for adults with asthma. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 245 patients with stable, moderate to severe asthma were included. They were randomized into a self-treatment group (group S) and a control group (group C). Both groups received self-management education. Additionally, group S received self-treatment guidelines based on peak expiratory flow (PEF) and symptoms. Outcome parameters included: asthma symptoms, quality of life, pulmonary function, and exacerbation rate. The 2-yr study was completed by 174 patients. Both groups showed an improvement in the quality of life of 7%. PEF variability decreased by 32% and 29%, and the number of outpatient visits by 25% and 18% in groups S and C, respectively. No significant differences in these parameters were found between the two groups. After 1 yr, patients in both groups perceived better control of asthma and had more self-confidence regarding their asthma. The latter improvements were significantly greater in group S as compared to group C. There were no other differences in outcome parameters between the groups. Individual self-treatment guidelines for exacerbations on top of a general self-management programme does not seem to be of additional benefit in terms of improvements in the clinical outcome of asthma. However, patients in the self-treatment group had better scores in subjective outcome measures such as perceived control of asthma and self-confidence than patients in the control group. There is evidence that educational programmes may improve patient's compliance with asthma treatment and control symptoms. Whilst medical parameters have been thoroughly studied, few data are available concerning psychological intervention. The aim of our open pilot study was to verify whether any difference in perceived illness and response style to asthma existed in the patients enrolled in an Asthma Rehabilitation Group (ARG) and in a Control Group (CG). Forty consecutive asthmatics were randomly enrolled, all of whom were diagnosed, treated and followed-up according to the International Guidelines. Both groups underwent a psychological assessment at baseline and after one year. A battery of questionnaires was used to obtain data relating to baseline characteristics (anxiety, depression, psychophysiological disorders), emotional reactions to asthma attacks (panic-fear, etc,) and cognitive variables (external control, psychological stigma, internal beliefs, external chance, etc.) involved in the perceived illness. In addition, the Asthma Rehabilitation Group patients underwent an educational programme and a cognitive-behavioural intervention. In both groups, a reduction of anxiety and depression scores was observed, as well as a significant improvement of the medical parameters evaluated. Only the Asthma Rehabilitation Group reported lower scores on the Psychophysiological Questionnaire and on the External Control Subscale after 1 year. The Control Group reported higher score on the External Chance Scale. The data of our study seem to confirm the effectiveness of psychological intervention on the cognitive skills involved in the perception and management of asthma. Larger scale studies on this topic are suggested. Our aim was to assess the efficacy of budesonide (Pulmicort Turbohaler Astra) used as part of a self-management plan in a group of patients with chronic asthma. One hundred and twenty five patients with nocturnal asthma symptoms, despite the use of inhaled prophylactic and beta 2-agonist therapy, were randomized to inhaled budesonide 200, 400 or 800 micrograms b.i.d. either with dose adjustments made by the physician, i.e. doctor-managed (DM; n = 64), or as part of a self-management plan (SM; n = 61). The SM group were allowed to adjust their dose according to written guidelines based on morning peak flow. At the end of the 6 month treatment period, there were no significant differences detected between the DM and the SM groups either from the clinic or diary card data. Both groups demonstrated a significant reduction in the number of sleep-disturbed nights, by 75% in the DM group and 77% in the SM group, at the end of the study. In conclusion, for patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, either a doctor-adjusted dose regimen or a peak flow based self-management plan involving budesonide is equally efficacious. For some patients, a simple regimen, adjusted by the physician at clinic visits, may be easier to follow. Asthma education decreases the number of emergency visits in specific subgroups of patients with asthma. However, it remains unknown whether this improvement is related only to the use of an action plan alone or to other components of the educational intervention. A total of 126 patients consulting urgently for an acute asthma exacerbation were recruited; 98 completed the study. The first 45 patients were assigned to Group C (control; usual treatment). Thereafter, patients were randomized to either Group LE (limited education; teaching of the inhaler technique plus self- action plan given by the on call physician) or Group SE (same as group LE plus a structured educational program emphasizing self-capacity to manage asthma exacerbations). At baseline, there was no difference between groups in asthma morbidity, medication needs, or pulmonary function. After 12 mo, only Group SE showed a significant improvement in knowledge, willingness to adjust medications, quality of life scores, and peak expiratory flows. In the last 6 mo, the number of unscheduled medical visits for asthma was significantly lower in Group SE in comparison with groups C and LE (p = 0.03). The number (%) of patients with unscheduled medical visits also decreased significantly in Group SE compared with Groups C and LE (p = 0.02). We conclude that a structured educational intervention emphasizing self-management improves patient outcomes significantly more than a limited intervention or conventional treatment. The purpose was to compare the short-term cost-effectiveness of intensive vs conventional education and supervision for the self-management of mild asthmatic patients. Consecutive newly diagnosed asthmatic patients (n = 162) were randomized into an intervention group (IG) and a control group (CG) with 1 yr of treatment and follow-up. Intensive education was given to 77 patients at visits every third month in the outpatient clinic. Eighty CG patients received conventional education and advice at the baseline visit only. All patients received similar inhaled anti-inflammatory treatment. At baseline and at 12 months standard clinical lung functions and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were measured, the latter by the disease-specific St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the generic 15D. Furthermore, the use of extra health care services, medication and sickness days were recorded. The IG experienced a significant improvement in all clinical and HRQOL outcome variables. The same applied to the CG except spirometric values. The groups differed significantly only in terms of FEV1 (P < 0.05) in favour of the IG. There was a significant difference between the groups in extra costs. The mean cost was FIM 2351 per patient (294 Pounds sterling) in the CG and FIM 2757 per patient (345 Pounds) in the IG, of which the intervention cost was FIM 1978 per patient (247 Pounds). In 1 yr follow-up the intensive education programme did not prove to be cost effective but was dominated by the conventional one regardless of what effectiveness measure was used. Also, a purely monetary cost-benefit calculation showed that the intervention resulted in a negative net benefit (loss) of FIM 406 per patient (51 Pounds). A longer follow-up may be needed before definitive conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of this kind of intervention can be drawn. We assessed whether peak expiratory flow monitoring added to a self-management education programme reduced morbidity and improved pulmonary function and adherence to treatment in 100 asthma patients (aged 17-65 years) with adequate treatment and regular 1-year follow-up. Patients randomized to the experimental group used peak expiratory flow readings as the basis for their therapeutic plan coupled with educational intervention, whereas patients in the control group received the same educational intervention and used symptoms only to guide self-management. Morbidity parameters, functional status and adherence to medical regimens improved in both groups, although the percentage of patients with satisfactory adherence was significantly better in the group with peak expiratory flow monitoring (83%) than in controls (52%) (P = 0.05). The multivariate analysis showed that severity of asthma (odds ratio 9.28, 95% confidence interval 1.87-45.96, P = 0.006 for moderate asthma) and type of self-management education programme (odds ratio: 6.19; 95% confidence interval: 2.04-18.81; P = 0.001 for the use of peak expiratory flow readings) were the only independent predictors of adherence to treatment. However, a statistically significant association between adherence and use of peak expiratory flow monitoring was only found in patients with moderate asthma (P = 0.0009). We conclude that peak expiratory flow monitorization in optimal conditions (adequate medical regimen, individualized self-management education and regular follow-up) showed a beneficial effect on adherence to prescribed regimens only in patients with moderate asthma. Great emphasis is placed on educating asthmatics to use action plans to achieve better control of symptoms. The use of peak flow meters (PFM) has been recommended as an important part of self-management plans. We studied 92 (47 F) adult patients with asthma in a primary care setting to compare the effectiveness of action plans using either peak flow monitoring or symptoms to guide self-management. Each patient was instructed in the use of the action plan in the context of a 6-mo asthma education program taught by a nurse. Patients were already using inhaled corticosteroids or were newly prescribed corticosteroids by their family physician. Forty-four patients were randomized to the PFM group and 48 to the symptoms group. Spirometry, symptom scores, quality of life, medication use, and measures of health care utilization and morbidity (emergency department visits, hospitalizations, unscheduled doctor visits, and days lost from work or school) were recorded at baseline and throughout the study period. PC20 methacholine was measured at the first and at the final visits. There were significant improvements within groups for FEV1, symptoms score, PC20 methacholine, and quality of life, but no between-group differences. A significant shift from higher to lower daily use of beta-agonists (p < 0.008 for both groups) and significant shifts to higher daily doses of inhaled steroids (p < 0.001) occurred in each group. Adherence to the self-management plans was only 65% in the PFM group and 52% in the symptoms group. Outcomes for health care utilization were similar except for fewer patients making unscheduled doctor visits within the PFM group. Our findings show that education, regular follow-up, and an action plan are effective in improving asthma control and quality of life, but the routine use of PFM to guide interventions is not the only way to accomplish these objectives. To compare a peak flow self management plan for asthma with a symptoms only plan.
                Randomisation to one of the self management plans and follow up for a year.
                Four partner, rural training practice in Norfolk.
                115 Patients (46 children and 69 adults) with asthma who were having prophylactic treatment for asthma and attending a nurse run asthma clinic.
                The number of doctor consultations, courses of oral steroids, and short term nebulised salbutamol treatments and the number of patients who required doctor consultations, courses of oral steroids, and short term nebulised salbutamol.
                Both self management plans produced significant reductions in the outcome measures but there were no significant differences in the degree of improvement between the groups. The results were similar for children and adults. The proportions of patients requiring a doctor consultation fell from 98% (50/51) to 66% (34/51) in the peak flow group and from 97% (62/64) to 53% (34/64) in the symptoms only group and the proportions requiring oral steroids from 73% (34/46) to 47% (21/46) and 52% (31/60) to 12% (7/60). The median number of doctor consultations was reduced from 8.0 to 2.0 in the peak flow group and from 4.5 to 1.0 in the symptoms only group.
                The peak flow meter was not the crucial ingredient in the improved illness of the two groups. Teaching patients the importance of their symptoms and the appropriate action to take when their asthma deteriorates is the key to effective management of asthma. Simply prescribing peak flow meters without a system of self management and regular review will be unlikely to improve patient care. Peak flow meters (PFM) continue to be recommended as an important part of asthma self-management plans. It remains unclear if there is an advantage in using PFM in people with moderate-to severe asthma who are not poor perceivers of bronchoconstriction.
                Prospective, randomized controlled trial of 134 adults with moderate-to-severe asthma who did not have evidence of poor perception of bronchoconstriction on histamine challenge testing, who were recruited from inpatients and outpatients of a university teaching hospital. Comparison was made over 12 months of the effectiveness of written action plans using either peak flow monitoring or symptoms to guide management. Subjects were contacted at monthly intervals by telephone for reinforcement and evaluation of use of the action plans, and to provide ongoing education. Spirometry and PD20 histamine were measured at 3-monthly intervals. Measures of health care utilization and morbidity (asthma exacerbations; hospitalizations; emergency department (ED) visits; days absent from work or school due to asthma; medication use and a self-rating of asthma severity) were made monthly. A psychosocial questionnaire (attitudes and beliefs, state-trait anxiety, denial) was given at entry and at 12-months or at withdrawal from the study.
                There were significant improvements for both groups for hospitalizations, ED visits, days off from school or work, and PD20 histamine, but no between-group differences. Appropriate use of action plans was 85% in the symptoms group and 86% in the PFM group. For all subjects, those who subsequently had an ED visit had significantly higher levels of denial (P=0.04) and lower scores for self-confidence (P=0.04), compared to those who did not have an ED visit.
                Use of written action plans, combined with regular contact to reinforce self-management, improved airway reactivity and reduced health care utilization. However, use of PFM was not superior to symptom-based plans. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an asthma education program on morbidity, knowledge, and compliance with inhaled corticosteroid treatment using a prospective, randomized, controlled, one-year-before/one-year-after protocol. After rigorous optimization of asthma therapy under the care of respirologists, patients were assigned to one of three groups: Group C (control group: no formal education), Group P (education and action plan based on peak-flow monitoring), and Group S (education with action plan based on monitoring of asthma symptoms). A total of 188 subjects with moderate to severe asthma were enrolled and 149 completed the study. Asthma morbidity decreased significantly in all groups (p = 0.001). Mean values one-year-before/one-year-after in Groups C, P, and S were: unscheduled medical visits, 2.4/0.8, 2.3/0.7, and 1.9/ 0.7; hospitalizations, 0.21/0.04, 0.24/0.04, and 0.40/0.09; oral steroid treatments; 1.3/0.5, 1.2/0.7, and 1.3/0.9; absenteeism from work/school, 9.6/5.2, 8.8/2.2, and 6.3/2.9. Between-group differences did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). Asthma knowledge increased in both educated groups compared with the control group (p < 0.001) as did short-term compliance with inhaled corticosteroids. These results confirm that treatment optimization coupled with sustained high quality care in motivated patients can lead to a significant decrease in asthma morbidity. In such clinical settings, structured asthma education significantly improved short-term compliance with treatment and knowledge about asthma, although it could not add extra benefit with regard to morbidity. Nevertheless, this study does not refute the potential benefit of educational interventions aimed at improving asthma-related morbidity over a longer time period or in patients with less optimal care or with high-risk factors. To compare the efficacy of self management of asthma with traditional treatment.
                12 month prospective randomised trial.
                Outpatient clinics in Finland.
                115 patients with mild to moderately severe asthma.
                Patient education and adjustment of anti-inflammatory therapy guided by peak flow measurements.
                Unscheduled admissions to hospital and outpatient visits, days off work, courses of antibiotics and prednisolone, lung function, and quality of life.
                The mean number of unscheduled visits to ambulatory care facilities (0.5 v 1.0), days off work (2.8 v 4.8), and courses of antibiotics (0.4 v 0.9) and prednisolone (0.4 v 1.0) per patient were lower and the quality of life score (16.6 v 8.4 at 12 months) higher in the self management group than in the traditionally treated group. In both groups admissions for asthma were rare.
                Self management reduces incidents caused by asthma and improves quality of life. To determine the effect of a symptom-based and a peak flow-based action plan in preventing acute exacerbations in subjects with poorly controlled asthma.
                A randomized controlled trial in which subjects who had required urgent treatment for their asthma were allocated to receive no action plan, a symptom-based plan, or a peak flow-based action plan.
                A university hospital asthma clinic.
                One hundred fifty subjects were recruited after attending an emergency department or a clinic for urgent treatment of asthma.
                All subjects received evaluation and education for asthma before being randomly allocated to receive no action plan, a symptom-based action plan, or a peak flowmeter and a peak flow-based action plan.
                Subjects were assessed by questionnaire at 3 and 6 months after enrollment with questions relating to their asthma control and their need for urgent treatment or hospital admission for asthma.
                At 6 months after enrollment, although all three intervention groups experienced improvement in their asthma control, there was a striking reduction in emergency department visits for asthma only in the peak flow-based action plan group (p=0.006). No significant difference in emergency visits was apparent between the symptom-based action plan and no action plan groups.
                We conclude that a peak flow-based action plan is effective, at least in the short term, in protecting patients with asthma against severe exacerbations of their disease. To evaluate the effectiveness of routine self monitoring of peak flow for asthma outpatients.
                Pragmatic randomised trial.
                Hospital outpatient clinics and general practices in north east Scotland.
                Use of bronchodilators and inhaled and oral steroids; number of general practice consultations and hospital admissions for asthma; sleep disturbance and other restrictions on normal activity; psychological aspects of health including perceived control of asthma.
                After one year there were no significant differences between patients randomised between self monitoring of peak flow and conventional monitoring. However, those given a peak flow meter recorded an increase in general practice consultations that was nearly significant. Among patients whose asthma was judged on entry to be more severe, those allocated to self monitoring used more than twice as many oral steroids (2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 4.6). Patients who already possessed a peak flow meter at the start of the study recorded higher morbidity over the course of the year than those eligible for randomisation.
                Prescribing peak flow meters and giving self management guidelines to all asthma patients is unlikely to improve mortality or morbidity. Patients whose asthma is severe may benefit from such an intervention.
Optimal self-management allowing for optimisation of asthma control by adjustment of medications may be conducted by either self-adjustment with the aid of a written action plan or by regular medical review. Individualised written action plans based on PEF are equivalent to action plans based on symptoms. Reducing the intensity of self-management education or level of clinical review may reduce its effectiveness.