Pediatric asthma treatment: What to do when international guideline recommendations do not agree.

BACKGROUND: There was a need for a solid asthma guideline in Mexico to update and unify asthma management. Because high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, in which the latest evidence on asthma management is summarized, the ADAPTE approach allows for the development of a national asthma guideline based on evidence from already existing guidelines, adapted to national needs. OBJECTIVE: To fuse evidence from the best asthma guidelines and adapt it to local needs with the ADAPTE approach. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II asthma guidelines were evaluated by a core group to select 3 primary guidelines. For each step of asthma management, clinical questions were formulated and replied according to (1) evidence in the primary guidelines, (2) safety, (3) Cost, and (4) patient preference. The Guidelines Development Group, composed of a broad range of experts from medical specialties, primary care physicians, and methodologists, adjusted the draft questions and replies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings, taking into account the reality of the situation in Mexico. We present the results of the pediatric asthma treatment part. RESULTS: Selected primary guidelines are from the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and Spanish Guidelines on the Management of Asthma (GEMA) 2015, with 2016 updates. Recommendations or suggestions were made for asthma treatment in Mexico. In this article, the detailed analysis of the evidence present in the BTS/SIGN, GINA, and GEMA sections on the (non) pharmacologic treatment of pediatric asthma, education, and devices are presented for 2 age groups: children 5 years or younger and children 6 to 11 years old with asthma. CONCLUSION: For the pediatric treatment and patient education sections, applying the AGREE II and Delphi methods is useful to develop a scientifically sustained document, adjusted to the Mexican situation, as is the Mexican Guideline on Asthma.

[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.

[Mexican Asthma Guidelines: GUIMA 2017]. / Guía Mexicana del Asma: GUIMA 2017.

BACKGROUND: The need for a national guideline, with a broad basis among specialists and primary care physicians was felt in Mexico, to try unifying asthma management. As several high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, it was decided to select the best three for transculturation. METHODS: Following the internationally recommended methodology for guideline transculturation, ADAPTE, a literature search for asthma guidelines, published 1-1-2007 through 31-12-2015 was conducted. AGREE-II evaluations yielded 3/40 most suitable for transculturation. Their compound evidence was fused with local reality, patient preference, cost and safety considerations to draft the guideline document. Subsequently, this was adjusted by physicians from 12 national medical societies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings to reach the final version. RESULTS: Evidence was fused from British Thoracic Society Asthma Guideline 2014, Global Initiative on Asthma 2015, and Guía Española del Manejo del Asma 2015 (2016 updates included). After 3 Delphi-rounds we developed an evidence-based document taking into account patient characteristics, including age, treatment costs and safety and best locally available medication. CONCLUSIONS: In cooperation pulmonologists, allergists, ENT physicians, paediatricians and GPs were able to develop an evidence-based document for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of asthma and its exacerbations in Mexico.

Antecedentes: Con el objetivo de unificar el manejo del asma en México se estructuró una guía clínica que conjunta el conocimiento de diversas especialidades y la atención en el primer nivel de contacto. Se seleccionaron 3 guías publicadas en el ámbito internacional para su transculturación. Métodos: Conforme a la metodología ADAPTE se usó AGREE II después de la búsqueda bibliográfica de guías sobre asma publicadas entre 2007 y 2015. Se fusionó la realidad local con la evidencia de 3/40 mejores guías. El documento inicial fue sometido a la revisión de representantes de 12 sociedades médicas en varias rondas Delphi hasta llegar a la versión final. Resultados: Las guías base fueron la British Thoracic Society Asthma Guideline 2014, la Global Initiative on Asthma 2015 y la Guía Española del Manejo del Asma 2015. Después de 3 rondas Delphi se desarrolló un documento en el que se consideraron las características de los pacientes según edad, costos de los tratamientos y perfiles de seguridad de los fármacos disponibles en México. Conclusión: Con la cooperación de neumólogos, alergólogos, otorrinolaringólogos, pediatras y médicos generales se llegó a un consenso basado en evidencia, en el que se incluyeron recomendaciones sobre prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento del asma y sus crisis.

Underestimation of the peak flow variability in asthmatic children: evaluation of a new formula.

Asthma guidelines suggest evaluation of peak expiratory flow (PEF) variability, but timing for the two PEF measurements is not mentioned. Usual formula calculates amplitude as percentage of mean day-night PEF values. Since PEF circadian changes follow a sinusoidal function, we reasoned that variability might be calculated by measuring PEF at 4 pm (PEF(1)) and either at 10 am or 10 pm (PEF(2)) with the formula %variability = 200 . |PEF(1)-PEF(2)|/PEF(2). Children with stable, mild intermittent asthma were recruited from an Asthma Clinic and asked to perform PEF measurements at even hours during a week, until 12 measurements covering a 24-h period were accomplished. From these measurements we calculated PEF variability through several methods. Accuracy of such methods to predict actual PEF variability was assessed through the concordance correlation coefficient (r(c)). Thirty five asthmatic children were recruited. Actual PEF variability, calculated with the usual formula using the highest and lowest PEF obtained at any time of the 24 h cycle had a median of 37.3% (range, 0-88.5%). Variability calculated through other methods was: usual formula with highest and lowest PEF obtained from the sinusoidal curve, 21.4% (r(c) = 0.79); usual formula with PEF measured at 4 pm and 4 am, 17.8% (r(c) = 0.67); proposed formula using PEF measured at 4 pm and either 10 pm, 15.9% (r(c) = 0.68), or 10 am, 17.4% (r(c) = 0.69). Some examples with PEF measured in the morning (8 am or 10 am) and at night (8 pm or 10 pm) yielded median PEF variability from 4.0% (r(c) = 0.18) to 8.7% (r(c) = 0.38). Current methods for calculating PEF variability seemed not to be accurate enough as to be confident, suggesting that an in-deep reevaluation of the usefulness of PEF variability or, conversely, of the methods to assess it, should be done.