Cargando…

Is the BTS/SIGN guideline confusing? A retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy

BACKGROUND: The British guideline on the management of asthma produced by the British Thoracic Society (BTS) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) describes five steps for the management of chronic asthma. Combination therapy of a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) and an inhaled c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Covvey, Jordan R, Johnston, Blair F, Wood, Fraser, Boyter, Anne C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23797678
http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00060
_version_ 1783407763005636608
author Covvey, Jordan R
Johnston, Blair F
Wood, Fraser
Boyter, Anne C
author_facet Covvey, Jordan R
Johnston, Blair F
Wood, Fraser
Boyter, Anne C
author_sort Covvey, Jordan R
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The British guideline on the management of asthma produced by the British Thoracic Society (BTS) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) describes five steps for the management of chronic asthma. Combination therapy of a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended as first-line therapy at step 3, although the dose of ICS at which to add a LABA is subject to debate. AIMS: To classify the inhaled therapy prescribed to patients with asthma in NHS Forth Valley according to two interpretations of the BTS/SIGN guideline and to evaluate the use of combination therapy in this population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis including patients from 46 general practitioner surgeries was conducted. Patients with physician-diagnosed asthma were classified according to the BTS/SIGN guideline based on treatment prescribed during 2008. Patient characteristics were evaluated for the overall step classification, and specifically for therapy in step 3. RESULTS: 12,319 patients were included. Guideline interpretation resulted in a shift of 9.2% of patients (receiving medium-dose ICS alone) between steps 2 and 3. The largest proportion of patients (32.3%) was classified at step 4. Age, sex, smoking status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease co-morbidity, and utilisation of short-acting β(2)-agonists and oral corticosteroids all correlated with step; however, no differences in these characteristics were evident between low-dose combination therapy and medium-dose ICS alone at step 3. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are needed to evaluate prescribing decisions in asthma. Guideline recommendations regarding the use of ICS dose escalation versus combination therapy need to be clarified relative to the published evidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6442817
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64428172019-07-01 Is the BTS/SIGN guideline confusing? A retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy Covvey, Jordan R Johnston, Blair F Wood, Fraser Boyter, Anne C Prim Care Respir J Research Paper BACKGROUND: The British guideline on the management of asthma produced by the British Thoracic Society (BTS) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) describes five steps for the management of chronic asthma. Combination therapy of a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended as first-line therapy at step 3, although the dose of ICS at which to add a LABA is subject to debate. AIMS: To classify the inhaled therapy prescribed to patients with asthma in NHS Forth Valley according to two interpretations of the BTS/SIGN guideline and to evaluate the use of combination therapy in this population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis including patients from 46 general practitioner surgeries was conducted. Patients with physician-diagnosed asthma were classified according to the BTS/SIGN guideline based on treatment prescribed during 2008. Patient characteristics were evaluated for the overall step classification, and specifically for therapy in step 3. RESULTS: 12,319 patients were included. Guideline interpretation resulted in a shift of 9.2% of patients (receiving medium-dose ICS alone) between steps 2 and 3. The largest proportion of patients (32.3%) was classified at step 4. Age, sex, smoking status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease co-morbidity, and utilisation of short-acting β(2)-agonists and oral corticosteroids all correlated with step; however, no differences in these characteristics were evident between low-dose combination therapy and medium-dose ICS alone at step 3. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are needed to evaluate prescribing decisions in asthma. Guideline recommendations regarding the use of ICS dose escalation versus combination therapy need to be clarified relative to the published evidence. Nature Publishing Group 2013-09 2013-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6442817/ /pubmed/23797678 http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00060 Text en Copyright © 2013 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK
spellingShingle Research Paper
Covvey, Jordan R
Johnston, Blair F
Wood, Fraser
Boyter, Anne C
Is the BTS/SIGN guideline confusing? A retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy
title Is the BTS/SIGN guideline confusing? A retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy
title_full Is the BTS/SIGN guideline confusing? A retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy
title_fullStr Is the BTS/SIGN guideline confusing? A retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy
title_full_unstemmed Is the BTS/SIGN guideline confusing? A retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy
title_short Is the BTS/SIGN guideline confusing? A retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy
title_sort is the bts/sign guideline confusing? a retrospective database analysis of asthma therapy
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23797678
http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00060
work_keys_str_mv AT covveyjordanr isthebtssignguidelineconfusingaretrospectivedatabaseanalysisofasthmatherapy
AT johnstonblairf isthebtssignguidelineconfusingaretrospectivedatabaseanalysisofasthmatherapy
AT woodfraser isthebtssignguidelineconfusingaretrospectivedatabaseanalysisofasthmatherapy
AT boyterannec isthebtssignguidelineconfusingaretrospectivedatabaseanalysisofasthmatherapy