Alpine altitude climate treatment for severe and uncontrolled asthma: An EAACI position paper.

Currently available European Alpine Altitude Climate Treatment (AACT) programs combine the physical characteristics of altitude with the avoidance of environmental triggers in the alpine climate and a personalized multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation approach. The reduced barometric pressure, oxygen pressure, and air density, the relatively low temperature and humidity, and the increased UV radiation at moderate altitude induce several physiological and immunological adaptation responses. The environmental characteristics of the alpine climate include reduced aeroallergens such as house dust mites (HDM), pollen, fungi, and less air pollution. These combined factors seem to have immunomodulatory effects controlling pathogenic inflammatory responses and favoring less neuro-immune stress in patients with different asthma phenotypes. The extensive multidisciplinary treatment program may further contribute to the observed clinical improvement by AACT in asthma control and quality of life, fewer exacerbations and hospitalizations, reduced need for oral corticosteroids (OCS), improved lung function, decreased airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), improved exercise tolerance, and improved sinonasal outcomes. Based on observational studies and expert opinion, AACT represents a valuable therapy for those patients irrespective of their asthma phenotype, who cannot achieve optimal control of their complex condition despite all the advances in medical science and treatment according to guidelines, and therefore run the risk of falling into a downward spiral of loss of physical and mental health. In the light of the observed rapid decrease in inflammation and immunomodulatory effects, AACT can be considered as a natural treatment that targets biological pathways.

Internet-Based Self-Management Support After High-Altitude Climate Treatment for Severe Asthma: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe asthma, high-altitude climate treatment has been shown to improve asthma control. However, asthma symptoms and limitations may increase after finishing inpatient rehabilitation programs and returning to sea level. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effectiveness of a patient-tailored, internet-based, self-management strategy in addition to usual care after finishing high-altitude climate treatment. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial with a 1-year follow-up in patients from a high-altitude asthma center in Davos, Switzerland. At the end of a 12-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program, 62 adults with asthma were randomized to receive either internet-based self-management support in addition to usual care (n=33) or usual care only after discharge (n=29). The endpoints were changes in asthma-related quality of life according to the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) (a higher score is better) and asthma control according to the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) (a lower score is better), with a minimally important difference of 0.5 points for both. RESULTS: Asthma-related quality of life and asthma control declined over time in the usual care strategy group, whereas there was a slower decline in the internet-based strategy group. For both endpoints, mixed-model analysis showed a significant positive effect in favor of internet-based self-management during follow-up (mean AQLQ score difference 0.39, 95% CI 0.092-0.69; P=.01 and ACQ score difference -0.50, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.15; P=.006), which was prominent among patients with uncontrolled asthma at discharge (AQLQ score difference 0.59, 95% CI 0.19-0.99; P=.003 and ACQ score difference -0.73, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.28; P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based self-management support was associated with a smaller decline in quality of life and asthma control as compared with usual care, especially in patients with lower asthma control, after completion of high-altitude climate treatment. Internet-based self-management support in adults with severe asthma seems feasible and effective to maintain quality of life and asthma control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1995).

High-altitude treatment in atopic and nonatopic patients with severe asthma.

The beneficial effects of high-altitude treatment in asthma have been attributed to allergen avoidance. Recent evidence shows that this treatment also improves airway inflammation in nonallergic patients. We hypothesised that high-altitude treatment is clinically equally effective in patients with severe refractory asthma, with or without allergic sensitisation. In a prospective observational cohort study, 137 adults with severe refractory asthma (92 with allergic sensitisation), referred for high-altitude (1,600 m) treatment in Davos, Switzerland, were consecutively included. We measured asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ)), sino-nasal symptoms (Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20)), medication requirement, postbronchodilator (post-BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), 6-min walking distance (6MWD), total immunoglobulin (Ig)E, blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (F(eNO)) at admission and after 12 weeks. Sensitised and nonsensitised patients showed similar improvements in ACQ (-1.4 and -1.5, respectively; p = 0.79), AQLQ (1.6 and 1.5, respectively; p = 0.94), SNOT-20 (-0.7 and -0.5, respectively; p = 0.18), post-BD FEV(1) (6.1% and 5.8% pred, respectively; p = 0.87), 6MWD (+125 m and +147 m, respectively; p = 0.43) and oral steroids (40% versus 44%, respectively; p = 0.51). Sensitised patients showed a larger decrease in total IgE, blood eosinophils and F(eNO). High-altitude treatment improves clinical and functional parameters, and decreases oral corticosteroid requirement in patients with severe refractory asthma, irrespective of allergic sensitisation.

Health status measurement in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma experience problems in different areas of their health status. Identification of these areas will provide insight in the patients needs and perhaps what determines the burden of disease. The Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument (NCSI) was recently developed for use in clinical practice in patients with COPD and provides a detailed picture of the patients' physiological functioning, symptoms, functional impairment, and Quality of Life. Main purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of the NCSI as compared to the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) in patients with severe asthma. METHODS: The NCSI, AQLQ, and ACQ were measured in 167 patients with severe asthma. Pearson correlations were calculated between NCSI sub-domains and the AQLQ domains and the ACQ. RESULTS: The NCSI measures more aspects of health status as compared to the ACQ and AQLQ in patients with severe asthma. Beside symptoms, subjective impairment, and emotions the NCSI also measures general Quality of Life, health related Quality of Life, satisfaction with relations, fatigue, and behavioural impairment. On all NCSI sub-domains proportions of patients with normal, mild, and severe problems were found. Heterogeneity was found on the number and on the combination of sub-domains on which patients reported severe problems. CONCLUSIONS: The NCSI provides a more detailed picture of the individual patient with severe asthma than the ACQ and AQLQ. The use of the NCSI might allow quick identification of the problem areas and possible factors that impair health status.