An independent in-depth analysis proposing adjusted Global Initiative on Asthma Step 1-2 treatment suggestions.

The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) strategy included major changes for the treatment of mild asthma in the 2020 version that are even taken to the next level in 2021, leaving a preferred track with only rescue therapy with inhaled corticosteroid and formoterol (ICS-FORM) for steps 1-2 in 12+ years old. It has been questioned how solid the evidence behind these recommendations is. We decided to independently conduct an in-depth analysis of published evidence based on a comprehensive evaluation of original articles and related appendices and publications, including quality of evidence and risk of bias per article. We first defined the major asthma treatment goals and proceeded to review how these were met in publications referenced in the main asthma guidelines. For patients with GINA (2021) Step 1 characteristics, the analysis supports GINA's decision to avoid SABA monotherapy and to prefer ICS-FORM rescue with an alternative ICS rescue every time a SABA is used for ≥12 years, even though evidence is extrapolated from step 2 patients. For 6- to 11-year-olds, we propose to consider ICS-FORM rescue as an alternative, as its use has been approved in this age group, be it not as rescue medication. For patients with GINA 2021 Step 2 characteristics, our proposal slightly differs from GINA 2021. We propose to continue avoiding the separate use of SABA, using ICS rescue whenever a fast-acting bronchodilator is taken (even with ICS maintenance). Also, the superiority of ICS-FORM rescue over classical step 2 treatment is not uniform and year-long experience is lacking. Consequently, for now, both treatment options seem equal: ICS-FORM rescue or ICS maintenance with SABA (+ICS) rescue. For 6- to 11-year-olds, ICS rescue every time a SABA is used has the advantage of lower total ICS dose; as alternative we suggest ICS-FORM rescue. The best treatment option depends on patient characteristics and treatment goals. Recommendations should be reviewed as soon as new evidence becomes available.

[MIA 2021, Comprehensive Asthma Management. Guidelines for Mexico]. / MIA 2021, Manejo Integral del Asma. Lineamientos para México.

BACKGROUND: Asthma continues to be one of the most frequent chronic respiratory diseases in our country. New methods for diagnosis and treatment have been described; accordingly, the international guidelines were renewed. OBJECTIVE: To create a national platform for the development of updated guidelines, solidly based on evidence: Comprehensive Asthma Management (Spanish acronym: MIA). METHODS: MIA uses the ADAPTE method. The MIA development group consists of experts in pulmonology-allergology-methodology and representatives of 13 institutions and societies of specialties that manage asthma. The international reference guidelines (selected with AGREE-II): GINA 2020, GEMA 5.0, BTS/SIGN 2019 and ATS/ERS consensus document 2014-2019 on severe asthma. MIA covers suspected asthma, diagnosis, treatment, and special groups. Key clinical questions were formulated on treatment steps 1-3, biomarkers and severe asthma. RESULTS: Based on evidence, safety, cost and local reality, the core group developed responses. Through a Delphi process the broad MIA development group suggested adjustments until consensus was reached. CONCLUSION: A document was generated with multiple figures and algorithms, solidly based on evidence about asthma management, adjusted for Mexico with a broad base among different societies that participated in its development. It does not include guidelines for acute asthma.

Antecedentes: El asma sigue siendo una patología respiratoria crónica frecuente en México. Se han descrito nuevos métodos para el diagnóstico y tratamiento conforme se renuevan las guías internacionales. Objetivo: Crear la plataforma nacional Manejo Integral del Asma (MIA), para el desarrollo de lineamientos actualizados con base en evidencia. Métodos: Se utilizó el método ADAPTE. El grupo de desarrollo de MIA estuvo integrado por expertos en neumología, alergología y metodología y representantes de 13 instituciones y sociedades de especialidades que manejan asma. Las guías internacionales de referencia (seleccionadas con AGREE-II) fueron GINA 2020, GEMA 5.0, BTS/SIGN 2019 y consenso ATS/ERS 2014-2019. En MIA se aborda sospecha de asma, diagnóstico, tratamiento y grupos especiales. Se formularon preguntas clínicas clave sobre tratamiento en los pasos 1 a 3, biomarcadores y asma grave. Resultados: Con base en evidencia, seguridad, costo y realidad local, el grupo nuclear desarrolló respuestas. Mediante proceso Delphi, el grupo amplio de desarrollo sugirió ajustes hasta que se logró el consenso. Conclusión: El documento generado contiene múltiples figuras y algoritmos, está sólidamente basado en evidencia acerca del manejo del asma y fue ajustado para México con participación de diferentes sociedades para su desarrollo; no se incluyeron lineamientos para la crisis asmática.

Computer-aided classification of small airways dysfunction using impulse oscillometric features: a children-focused review.

Background and objective Spirometry, which is the most commonly used technique for asthma diagnosis, is often unsuitable for small children as it requires them to follow exact instructions and perform extreme inspiration and expiration maneuvers. In contrast, impulse oscillometry (IOS) is a child-friendly technique that could serve as an alternative pulmonary function test (PFT) for asthma diagnosis and control in children as it offers several advantages over spirometry. However, the complex test results of IOS may be difficult to be understood by practitioners due to its reliance on mechanical and electrical models of the human pulmonary system. Recognizing this reality, computer-aided decision systems could help to improve the utility of IOS. The main objective of this paper is to understand the current computer-aided classification research works on this topic. Methods This paper presents a methodological review of research works related to the computer-aided classification of peripheral airway obstruction using the IOS technique, which is focused on, but not limited to, asthmatic children. Publications that focused on computer-aided classification of asthma, peripheral dysfunction and/or small airway impairment (SAI) based on impulse oscillometric features were selected for this review. Results Out of the 34 articles that were identified using the selected scientific web databases and topic-related parameters, only eight met the eligibility criteria. The most relevant results of the articles reviewed are related to the performance of the different classifiers using static features which are solely based on the first pulmonary function testing measurements (IOS and spirometry). These results included an overall classifiers' accuracy performance ranging from 42.24% to 98.61%. Conclusion There is still a great opportunity to improve the utility of IOS by developing more computer-aided robust classifiers, specifically for the asthmatic children population as the classification studies performed to date (1) are limited in number, (2) include features derived from tests that are not optimally suitable for children, (3) are solely bi-class (mostly asthma and non-asthma) and therefore fail to include different degrees of peripheral obstruction for disease prevention and control and (4) lack of validation in cases that focus on multi-class classification of the different degrees of peripheral airway obstruction.

Reference values for airway resistance in newborns, infants and preschoolers from a Latin American population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several studies have determined reference values for airway resistance measured by the interrupter technique (Rint) in paediatric populations, but only one has been done on Latin American children, and no studies have been performed on Mexican children. Moreover, these previous studies mostly included children aged 3 years and older; therefore, information regarding Rint reference values for newborns and infants is scarce. METHODS: Rint measurements were performed on preschool children attending eight kindergartens (Group 1) and also on sedated newborns, infants and preschool children admitted to a tertiary-level paediatric hospital due to non-cardiopulmonary disorders (Group 2). RESULTS: In both groups, Rint values were inversely associated with age, weight and height, but the strongest association was with height. The linear regression equation for Group 1 (n = 209, height 86-129 cm) was Rint = 2.153 - 0.012 × height (cm) (standard deviation of residuals 0.181 kPa/L/s). The linear regression equation for Group 2 (n = 55, height 52-113 cm) was Rint = 4.575 - 0.035 × height (cm) (standard deviation of residuals 0.567 kPa/L/s). Girls tended to have slightly higher Rint values than boys, a difference that diminished with increasing height. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, Rint reference values applicable to Mexican children were determined, and these values are probably also applicable to other paediatric populations with similar Spanish-Amerindian ancestries. There was an inverse relationship between Rint and height, with relatively large between-subject variability.