2021 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of severe asthma.

Advances in the understanding that severe asthma is a complex and heterogeneous disease and in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of asthma, with the identification of different phenotypes and endotypes, have allowed new approaches for the diagnosis and characterization of the disease and have resulted in relevant changes in pharmacological management. In this context, the definition of severe asthma has been established, being differentiated from difficult-to-control asthma. These recommendations address this topic and review advances in phenotyping, use of biomarkers, and new treatments for severe asthma. Emphasis is given to topics regarding personalized management of the patient and selection of biologicals, as well as the importance of evaluating the response to treatment. These recommendations apply to adults and children with severe asthma and are targeted at physicians involved in asthma treatment. A panel of 17 Brazilian pulmonologists was invited to review recent evidence on the diagnosis and management of severe asthma, adapting it to the Brazilian reality. Each of the experts was responsible for reviewing a topic or question relevant to the topic. In a second phase, four experts discussed and structured the texts produced, and, in the last phase, all experts reviewed and approved the present manuscript and its recommendations.

2020 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of asthma.

The pharmacological management of asthma has changed considerably in recent decades, as it has come to be understood that it is a complex, heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes and endotypes. It is now clear that the goal of asthma treatment should be to achieve and maintain control of the disease, as well as to minimize the risks (of exacerbations, disease instability, accelerated loss of lung function, and adverse treatment effects). That requires an approach that is personalized in terms of the pharmacological treatment, patient education, written action plan, training in correct inhaler use, and review of the inhaler technique at each office visit. A panel of 22 pulmonologists was invited to perform a critical review of recent evidence of pharmacological treatment of asthma and to prepare this set of recommendations, a treatment guide tailored to use in Brazil. The topics or questions related to the most significant changes in concepts, and consequently in the management of asthma in clinical practice, were chosen by a panel of experts. To formulate these recommendations, we asked each expert to perform a critical review of a topic or to respond to a question, on the basis of evidence in the literature. In a second phase, three experts discussed and structured all texts submitted by the others. That was followed by a third phase, in which all of the experts reviewed and discussed each recommendation. These recommendations, which are intended for physicians involved in the treatment of asthma, apply to asthma patients of all ages.

Validation of scores of use of inhalation devices: valoration of errors.

OBJECTIVE: To validate two scores quantifying the ability of patients to use metered dose inhalers (MDIs) or dry powder inhalers (DPIs); to identify the most common errors made during their use; and to identify the patients in need of an educational program for the use of these devices. METHODS: This study was conducted in three phases: validation of the reliability of the inhaler technique scores; validation of the contents of the two scores using a convenience sample; and testing for criterion validation and discriminant validation of these instruments in patients who met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The convenience sample comprised 16 patients. Interobserver disagreement was found in 19% and 25% of the DPI and MDI scores, respectively. After expert analysis on the subject, the scores were modified and were applied in 72 patients. The most relevant difficulty encountered during the use of both types of devices was the maintenance of total lung capacity after a deep inhalation. The degree of correlation of the scores by observer was 0.97 (p < 0.0001). There was good interobserver agreement in the classification of patients as able/not able to use a DPI (50%/50% and 52%/58%; p < 0.01) and an MDI (49%/51% and 54%/46%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The validated scores allow the identification and correction of inhaler technique errors during consultations and, as a result, improvement in the management of inhalation devices.

Validation of scores of use of inhalation devices: valoration of errors / Validação de escores de uso de dispositivos para inalação: valoração dos erros cometidos

AbstractObjective: To validate two scores quantifying the ability of patients to use metered dose inhalers (MDIs) or dry powder inhalers (DPIs); to identify the most common errors made during their use; and to identify the patients in need of an educational program for the use of these devices.Methods: This study was conducted in three phases: validation of the reliability of the inhaler technique scores; validation of the contents of the two scores using a convenience sample; and testing for criterion validation and discriminant validation of these instruments in patients who met the inclusion criteria.Results: The convenience sample comprised 16 patients. Interobserver disagreement was found in 19% and 25% of the DPI and MDI scores, respectively. After expert analysis on the subject, the scores were modified and were applied in 72 patients. The most relevant difficulty encountered during the use of both types of devices was the maintenance of total lung capacity after a deep inhalation. The degree of correlation of the scores by observer was 0.97 (p < 0.0001). There was good interobserver agreement in the classification of patients as able/not able to use a DPI (50%/50% and 52%/58%; p < 0.01) and an MDI (49%/51% and 54%/46%; p < 0.05).Conclusions: The validated scores allow the identification and correction of inhaler technique errors during consultations and, as a result, improvement in the management of inhalation devices.

ResumoObjetivo: Validar dois escores para medir a habilidade de pacientes em utilizar inaladores pressurizados (IPs) ou inaladores de pó (IPos), verificar os erros mais comuns na sua utilização e identificar os pacientes que necessitam de um programa educacional para o uso desses dispositivos.Métodos: Este estudo foi realizado em três etapas: validação da confiabilidade dos escores de uso dos dispositivos inalatórios; validação do conteúdo dos escores utilizando-se uma amostra de conveniência; e realização de testes para a validação de critério e a validação discriminante desses instrumentos em pacientes que preenchiam os critérios de inclusão do estudo.Resultados: A amostra de conveniência foi composta por 16 pacientes, e houve discordância interobservador em 19% e 25% para os escores de IPo e IP, respectivamente. Após a análise de expertos no assunto, os escores sofreram modificações e foram aplicados em 72 pacientes. A dificuldade mais relevante no uso de ambos os dispositivos foi a manutenção da capacidade pulmonar total após inspiração profunda. O grau de correlação dos escores por observador foi de 0,97 (p < 0,0001). Houve boa concordância interobservador na classificação dos pacientes como aptos/não aptos para uso de IPo (50%/50% e 52%/58%; p < 0,01) e de IP (49%/51% e 54%/46%; p < 0,05).Conclusões: Os escores validados permitem identificar e corrigir os erros da técnica inalatória ao longo das consultas e, em consequência, melhorar o manejo dos dispositivos para inalação.

Two-year evaluation of an educational program for adult outpatients with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the understanding of asthma and the clinical improvement in patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma prior to and after their participation in an educational program presented during the routine outpatient visits. METHODS: This was a prospective pilot study involving 164 patients over a two-year period. The educational program, presented to small groups on outpatient visit days, consisted of lectures divided into three parts: pathophysiology; environmental control; and treatment, including training in the inhalation technique. The program was evaluated using standardized questionnaires on clinical improvement and understanding of the disease. RESULTS: By the end of the first year, 120 patients had completed three visits, and 51 of those patients were re-evaluated at the end of the second year. The mean age of the patients was 44 years, 70% were female, and 43% had up to eight years of schooling. The educational intervention significantly increased the understanding of the disease (p < 0.001), and allowed greater clinical improvement (p < 0.05) with a decrease in the use of oral corticosteroids, fewer visits to the emergency room and fewer days missed from work or school. CONCLUSIONS: The educational program offered during the routine outpatient visits of adult patients with asthma at our clinic resulted in a progressive long-term increase in knowledge, as well as in clinical improvement.

Avaliação de dois anos de um programa educacional para pacientes ambulatoriais adultos com asma / Two-year evaluation of an educational program for adult outpatients with asthma

Objetivo: Avaliar o conhecimento da doença e a melhora clínica de portadores de asma persistente moderada e grave antes e após a sua participação em um programa de educação realizado durante as visitas ambulatoriais de rotina. Métodos: Trata-se de um estudo piloto, prospectivo que envolveu 164 pacientes durante um período de dois anos. O programa de educação, oferecido para pequenos grupos nos dias de consulta, consistiu de aulas expositivas divididas em três módulos: fisiopatologia, controle ambiental e tratamento, incluindo o treinamento da técnica inalatória. Para a avaliação do programa, foram utilizados questionários padronizados sobre a melhora clínica e conhecimento da doença. Resultados: Em um ano, 120 pacientes completaram três visitas, e 51 pacientes foram reavaliados em dois anos. A média de idade dos pacientes foi de 44 anos, 70% eram do sexo feminino, e 43% tinham até oito anos de educação formal. A intervenção educacional aumentou o conhecimento da doença de forma significativa (p < 0,001) e possibilitou melhora clinica (p < 0,05) com a diminuição do uso de corticosteroide oral, redução de visitas ao serviço de emergência e menor número de faltas ao trabalho ou escola. Conclusões: O programa de educação expositivo oferecido durante a rotina de atendimento ambulatorial de adultos asmáticos de nosso serviço mostrou um crescente e progressivo aprendizado em longo prazo. Paralelamente, promoveu melhora clínica.

Objective: To evaluate the understanding of asthma and the clinical improvement in patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma prior to and after their participation in an educational program presented during the routine outpatient visits. Methods: This was a prospective pilot study involving 164 patients over a two-year period. The educational program, presented to small groups on outpatient visit days, consisted of lectures divided into three parts: pathophysiology; environmental control; and treatment, including training in the inhalation technique. The program was evaluated using standardized questionnaires on clinical improvement and understanding of the disease. Results: By the end of the first year, 120 patients had completed three visits, and 51 of those patientswere revaluated at the end of the second year. The mean age of the patients was 44 years, 70% were female, and 43% had up to eight years of schooling. The educational intervention significantly increased the understanding of the disease (p < 0.001), and allowed greater clinical improvement (p < 0.05) with a decrease in the use of oral corticosteroids, fewer visits to the emergency room and fewer days missed from work or school. Conclusions: Theeducational program offered during the routine outpatient visits of adult patients with asthma at our clinic resulted in a progressive long-term increase in knowledge, as well as in clinical improvement.