Advances in Evaluation and Treatment of Severe Asthma (Part One).

As many as 15% to 20% of patients with asthma have incompletely or poorly controlled asthma despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonist bronchodilators. They are vulnerable to burdensome symptoms, limitations to their exercise capacity, and asthma attacks that can be frightening and potentially life-threatening. This article outlines a systematic approach to their evaluation, attempting to identify remediable factors that are making their asthma more severe than most other persons with asthma. This approach includes an emphasis on ensuring the correct diagnosis, minimizing exposures to stimuli that worsen airway inflammation, alleviating modifiable comorbidities such as chronic rhinosinusitis and gastroesophageal reflux, and supporting regular medication adherence and effective technique for administering inhaled medications. A basic diagnostic laboratory work-up is recommended, to be modified and amplified according to individual patient needs.

Advances in Evaluation and Treatment of Severe Asthma (Part Two).

Providers caring for patients with severe, therapy-resistant asthma have novel options for their treatment. Administration of additional inhaled corticosteroids at the time of increased symptoms, a strategy referred to as anti-inflammatory rescue or AIR, has been proved to be effective in reducing the frequency of exacerbations and improving asthma-related quality of life. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists can be used in combination with long-acting beta-agonist bronchodilators for additional bronchodilation. The care of the patient with severe asthma must also include a strategy to help avoid severe, life-threatening asthma attacks, with intense patient education and a recommended survival toolkit.

A Clinically Integrated mHealth App and Practice Model for Collecting Patient-Reported Outcomes between Visits for Asthma Patients: Implementation and Feasibility.

OBJECTIVE: Mobile health (mHealth) apps may prove to be useful tools for supporting chronic disease management. We assessed the feasibility of implementing a clinically integrated mHealth app and practice model to facilitate between-visit asthma symptom monitoring as per guidelines and with the help of patient-reported outcomes (PRO). METHODS: We implemented the intervention at two pulmonary clinics and conducted a mixed-methods analysis of app usage data and semi-structured interview of patients and clinician participants over a 25-week study period. RESULTS: Five physicians, 1 physician's assistant, 1 nurse, and 26 patients participated. Twenty-four patients (92%) were still participating in the intervention at the end of the 25-week study period. On average, each patient participant completed 21 of 25 questionnaires (84% completion rate). Weekly completion rates were higher for participants who were female (88 vs. 73%, p = 0.02) and obtained a bachelor's degree level or higher (94 vs. 74%, p = 0.04). On average, of all questionnaires, including both completed and not completed (25 weekly questionnaires times 26 patient participants), 25% had results severe enough to qualify for a callback from a nurse; however, patients declined this option in roughly half of the cases in which they were offered the option. We identified 6 key themes from an analysis of 21 patients and 5 clinician interviews. From the patient's perspective, these include more awareness of asthma, more connected with provider, and app simplicity. From the clinician's perspective, these include minimal additional work required, facilitating triage, and informing conversations during visits. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a clinically integrated mHealth app and practice model can achieve high patient retention and adherence to guideline-recommended asthma symptom monitoring, while minimally burdening clinicians. The intervention has the potential for scaling to primary care and reducing utilization of urgent and emergency care.

Musculoskeletal and pulmonary outcomes of sarcoidosis after initial presentation of osseous involvement.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the musculoskeletal and pulmonary outcomes of patients with osseous sarcoidosis. METHODS: We identified 24 patients with osseous sarcoidosis and at least one year of follow-up after diagnosis (baseline). We collected outcome data at 1-year follow-up and last follow-up. We defined a composite outcome measure; worsening considered as worsening in any of the following 4 components compared to baseline: 1) osseous sarcoidosis symptoms, 2) musculoskeletal imaging of affected bone, 3) chest imaging, or 4) pulmonary function testing (PFT). RESULTS: A minority of patients had a worsening composite outcome at 1-year (9/24, 38%) and last follow-up (5/24, 21%). When only considering musculoskeletal symptoms and imaging, only 25% (6/24) and 13% (3/24) of patients worsened compared to baseline at 1-year and last follow-up, respectively. Patients with a worsening composite overall outcome tended to be older at baseline than those without the outcome for both 1-year (54.3 years vs. 47.5 years, p=0.11) and last follow-up (55.0 years vs. 48.7 years; p=0.23), although these differences were non-significant. Treatment was not associated with worsening composite overall outcome at 1-year follow-up (p=0.40), but was significantly associated with decreased risk for worsening at last follow-up (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort study of osseous sarcoidosis, most patients had a favorable outcome according to symptoms, musculoskeletal/chest imaging, and PFTs, even though only a minority were treated with glucocorticoids or DMARDs. These results suggest that the natural history of osseous sarcoidosis is often benign, although some patients experience clinical progression.

Core Components for a Clinically Integrated mHealth App for Asthma Symptom Monitoring.

Background mHealth apps may be useful tools for supporting chronic disease management. Objective Our aim was to apply user-centered design principles to efficiently identify core components for an mHealth-based asthma symptom­monitoring intervention using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods We iteratively combined principles of qualitative research, user-centered design, and "gamification" to understand patients' and providers' needs, develop and refine intervention components, develop prototypes, and create a usable mobile app to integrate with clinical workflows. We identified anticipated benefits and burdens for stakeholders. Results We conducted 19 individual design sessions with nine adult patients and seven clinicians from an academic medical center (some were included multiple times). We identified four core intervention components: (1) Invitation­patients are invited by their physicians. (2) Symptom checks­patients receive weekly five-item questionnaires via the app with 48 hours to respond. Depending on symptoms, patients may be given the option to request a call from a nurse or receive one automatically. (3) Patient review­in the app, patients can view their self-reported data graphically. (4) In-person visit­physicians have access to patient-reported symptoms in the electronic health record (EHR) where they can review them before in-person visits. As there is currently no location in the EHR where physicians would consistently notice these data, recording a recent note was the best option. Benefits to patients may include helping decide when to call their provider and facilitating shared decision making. Benefits to providers may include saving time discussing symptoms. Provider organizations may need to pay nurses extra, but those costs may be offset by reduced visits and hospitalizations. Conclusion Recent systematic reviews show inconsistent outcomes and little insight into functionalities required for mHealth asthma interventions, highlighting the need for systematic intervention design. We identified specific features for adoption and engagement that meet the stated needs of users for asthma symptom monitoring.

Osseous sarcoidosis: clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes--experience from a large, academic hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Osseous sarcoidosis has been infrequently reported. We aimed to characterize the distribution of lesions, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes for osseous sarcoidosis. METHODS: Cases of osseous sarcoidosis were identified by directed inquiry to clinicians and electronic query. Cases were defined as having pathologic evidence of non-caseating granulomas on bone biopsy or evidence of osseous lesions on imaging attributable to sarcoidosis in patients with known sarcoidosis. Detailed characteristics were obtained by medical record review. RESULTS: We identified a total of 20 cases of osseous sarcoidosis. Osseous lesions were detected by imaging during the initial sarcoidosis presentation in 60% of cases. In those who had a prior diagnosis of sarcoidosis, the median duration of sarcoidosis before detection of osseous involvement was 4.3 years. Symptoms were present in 50% of cases. All cases had more than one bone involved. The axial skeleton was involved in the majority of cases (90%), primarily the pelvis and the lumbar spine. Most cases required no treatment (55%); a minority of cases (45%) were treated, most often with prednisone, methotrexate, or hydroxychloroquine. Two cases required multiple immunosuppressants, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, for refractory symptomatic osseous sarcoidosis. Treated cases were younger than those who were untreated. At last follow-up, most cases (85%) were asymptomatic from osseous lesions. CONCLUSIONS: In this case series of osseous sarcoidosis from a single center, most patients had multiple bones affected and had other systemic manifestations of sarcoidosis. A minority required treatment for relief of symptoms, and most cases were asymptomatic at last follow-up.

Difficult asthma: assessment and management, Part 1.

A minority of asthma patients have disease that proves difficult to control with usual medications and experience ongoing symptoms, poor quality of life, and limitations in activity and/or frequent asthma exacerbations. This group of patients accounts for much of the expense associated with asthma care and is the focus of national and international collaborative study groups. Distinguishing between "difficult-to-manage asthma" and truly "therapy-resistant asthma" is helpful and promotes a systematic consideration of contributory factors. Critical evaluation of factors contributing to difficult-to-manage asthma including adverse environment, comorbidities, nonadherence, and incorrect diagnosis is recommended in a systematic fashion in Part 1 of this contribution.

Difficult asthma: assessment and management, Part 2.

Patients with severe asthma have considerable morbidity related to their asthma and are at risk for serious, life-threatening exacerbations. Their management requires an intensive and comprehensive approach, including attention to reducing exposure to environmental inciters of airway inflammation and triggers of symptoms, patient education (including an asthma action plan), and opportunity for close patient-provider communication. Approved medical options include the lipoxygenase inhibitor, zileuton; the anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody, omalizumab; and bronchial thermoplasty. Nonapproved interventions of potential benefit are ultrahigh-dose inhaled corticosteroids, anticholinergic bronchodilators (tiotropium), macrolide antibiotics, and vitamin D supplementation for the vitamin D-deficient patient. Potentially toxic, "steroid-sparing" therapies such as methotrexate, cyclosporine, and etanercept are best reserved for patients participating in clinical trials. Recognition of specific subtypes of patients with therapy-resistant asthma permits more targeted treatment approaches, such as for aspirin-sensitive asthma, persistent eosinophilic asthma, asthma complicated by allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, asthma with persistent airflow obstruction, and asthma with life-threatening (near fatal) asthmatic attacks. Novel therapies based on an improved understanding of the pathobiology of therapy-resistant asthma are greatly needed.

Asthma: in plain language.

The Community Asthma Program was designed to increase awareness of asthma among urban residents and to bring more people into available care. Educational sessions with patients indicated that many adults struggle with the complicated demands of managing a chronic disease. At the same time, however, a good deal of the written materials meant to provide information and assistance instead make inappropriate demands on the average adult reader. The project team members developed a glossary of asthma terms to improve communication between patients and providers and to help patients understand the materials commonly used in neighborhood health centers. We report on the development of the glossary and describe formative research activities, initial dissemination efforts, and an interim evaluation. Health literacy, included in the goals and objectives for Healthy People 2010, can be improved when health materials are written in plain language and designed for the existing skills of the average U.S. adult reader.