OBJECTIVE: To determine whether peak flow monitoring has value above and beyond symptom monitoring when used as part of an asthma management plan. METHODS: From a large managed-care organization, 296 adults, aged 50-92 yr, were recruited and randomly assigned in equal numbers to either use of symptoms or peak flow rate (twice daily or "as needed") for asthma monitoring, and monitored every 6 mo for 2 yr. Interventions were delivered in four 90-min small-group classes and included a personalized action plan and coaching in proper use of asthma inhalers. RESULTS: We found no significant differences between peak flow rate and symptom monitoring, or between twice-daily and as-needed peak flow monitoring in the primary or secondary study outcomes: health care utilization (acute, nonacute, or total asthma visits), Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores, and lung function. AQLQ scores and prebronchodilator FEV1 increased significantly for both groups between baseline and 6 mo (AQLQ: mean, 0.4 units; 95% confidence interval, 0.3, 0.5; p < 0.0001; FEV1% predicted: mean, 4%). Inhaler technique improved substantially in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Peak flow monitoring has no advantage over symptom monitoring as an asthma management strategy for older adults with moderate-severe asthma when used in a comprehensive asthma management program. Improved outcomes in both groups suggest that understanding proper medication use, regular monitoring of asthma status, and understanding how to respond to changes are of primary importance.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether peak flow monitoring has value above and beyond symptom monitoring when used as part of an asthma management plan. METHODS: From a large managed-care organization, 296 adults, aged 50-92 yr, were recruited and randomly assigned in equal numbers to either use of symptoms or peak flow rate (twice daily or "as needed") for asthma monitoring, and monitored every 6 mo for 2 yr. Interventions were delivered in four 90-min small-group classes and included a personalized action plan and coaching in proper use of asthma inhalers. RESULTS: We found no significant differences between peak flow rate and symptom monitoring, or between twice-daily and as-needed peak flow monitoring in the primary or secondary study outcomes: health care utilization (acute, nonacute, or total asthma visits), Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores, and lung function. AQLQ scores and prebronchodilator FEV1 increased significantly for both groups between baseline and 6 mo (AQLQ: mean, 0.4 units; 95% confidence interval, 0.3, 0.5; p < 0.0001; FEV1% predicted: mean, 4%). Inhaler technique improved substantially in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Peak flow monitoring has no advantage over symptom monitoring as an asthma management strategy for older adults with moderate-severe asthma when used in a comprehensive asthma management program. Improved outcomes in both groups suggest that understanding proper medication use, regular monitoring of asthma status, and understanding how to respond to changes are of primary importance.
Authors: Gwen S Skloot; Paula J Busse; Sidney S Braman; Elizabeth J Kovacs; Anne E Dixon; Carlos A Vaz Fragoso; Nicola Scichilone; Y S Prakash; Christina M Pabelick; Sameer K Mathur; Nicola A Hanania; Wendy C Moore; Peter G Gibson; Susan Zieman; Betina B Ragless Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-11
Authors: Gregory H Bennett; Laurie Carpenter; Wei Hao; Peter Song; Joel Steinberg; Alan P Baptist Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Andrew Harver; Harry Kotses; Jennifer Ersek; Charles Thomas Humphries; William S Ashe; Hugh R Black Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Sandra R Wilson; Peg Strub; A Sonia Buist; Sarah B Knowles; Philip W Lavori; Jodi Lapidus; William M Vollmer Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Mohamed S Al-Moamary; Mohamed S Al-Hajjaj; Majdy M Idrees; Mohamed O Zeitouni; Mohammed O Alanezi; Hamdan H Al-Jahdali; Maha Al Dabbagh Journal: Ann Thorac Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.219
Authors: Ronina A Covar; Stanley J Szefler; Robert S Zeiger; Christine A Sorkness; Mark Moss; David T Mauger; Susan J Boehmer; Robert C Strunk; Fernando D Martinez; Lynn M Taussig Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Nicola A Hanania; Monroe J King; Sidney S Braman; Carol Saltoun; Robert A Wise; Paul Enright; Ann R Falsey; Sameer K Mathur; Joe W Ramsdell; Linda Rogers; David A Stempel; John J Lima; James E Fish; Sandra R Wilson; Cynthia Boyd; Kushang V Patel; Charles G Irvin; Barbara P Yawn; Ethan A Halm; Stephen I Wasserman; Mark F Sands; William B Ershler; Dennis K Ledford Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Mohamed S Al-Moamary; Sami A Alhaider; Mohamed S Al-Hajjaj; Mohammed O Al-Ghobain; Majdy M Idrees; Mohammed O Zeitouni; Adel S Al-Harbi; Maha M Al Dabbagh; Hussain Al-Matar; Hassan S Alorainy Journal: Ann Thorac Med Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 2.219