A Structured Approach to Specialist-referred Difficult Asthma Patients Improves Control of Comorbidities and Enhances Asthma Outcomes

Tunn Ren Tay, Joy Lee, Naghmeh Radhakrishna, Fiona Hore-Lacy, Robert Stirling, Ryan Hoy, Eli Dabscheck, Robyn O'Hehir, Mark Hew

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Systematic evaluation is advocated for difficult asthma, but how best to deliver such care is unclear and outcome data are scarce. Objective: We describe our institution's structured approach to difficult asthma management and report on the outcomes of such an approach. Methods: Eighty-two consecutive patients with difficult asthma referred to our clinic from respiratory specialists were evaluated in 3 key areas: diagnostic confirmation, comorbidity detection, and inflammatory phenotyping. We then optimized treatment including relevant comorbidity interventions. The outpatient protocol was supported by comorbidity questionnaires, an electronic clinic template, and standardized panel discussion. Asthma outcomes were assessed at 6 months. Results: Sixty-eight patients completed follow-up. Asthma diagnosis was refuted in 3 patients and the remaining 65 patients were included in the study analysis. There was no overall escalation of inhaled or oral corticosteroids. Patients had a median of 3 comorbidities, and a median of 3 comorbidity interventions. Control of chronic rhinosinusitis and dysfunctional breathing improved among patients with these diagnoses (22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score from 47 ± 20 to 37 ± 22, P = .017; Nijmegen score from 32 ± 6 to 25 ± 9, P = .003). There were overall improvements in the Asthma Control Test score (from 14 ± 5 to 16 ± 6, P < .001), the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (from 4.29 ± 1.4 to 4.65 ± 1.5, P = .073), and the frequency of exacerbations over 6 months (from 2 [interquartile range, 0-4] to 0 [interquartile range, 0-2], P < .001). Conclusions: In patients referred with difficult asthma from respiratory specialists, a structured approach coupled with targeted comorbidity interventions improved control of key comorbidities and enhanced asthma outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)956-964.e3
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
Volume5
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2017

Keywords

  • Asthma
  • Comorbidity
  • Difficult
  • Severe
  • Systematic assessment

Cite this

@article{3e26c1b5ab074001b01b72c6668cc0a4,
title = "A Structured Approach to Specialist-referred Difficult Asthma Patients Improves Control of Comorbidities and Enhances Asthma Outcomes",
abstract = "Background: Systematic evaluation is advocated for difficult asthma, but how best to deliver such care is unclear and outcome data are scarce. Objective: We describe our institution's structured approach to difficult asthma management and report on the outcomes of such an approach. Methods: Eighty-two consecutive patients with difficult asthma referred to our clinic from respiratory specialists were evaluated in 3 key areas: diagnostic confirmation, comorbidity detection, and inflammatory phenotyping. We then optimized treatment including relevant comorbidity interventions. The outpatient protocol was supported by comorbidity questionnaires, an electronic clinic template, and standardized panel discussion. Asthma outcomes were assessed at 6 months. Results: Sixty-eight patients completed follow-up. Asthma diagnosis was refuted in 3 patients and the remaining 65 patients were included in the study analysis. There was no overall escalation of inhaled or oral corticosteroids. Patients had a median of 3 comorbidities, and a median of 3 comorbidity interventions. Control of chronic rhinosinusitis and dysfunctional breathing improved among patients with these diagnoses (22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score from 47 ± 20 to 37 ± 22, P = .017; Nijmegen score from 32 ± 6 to 25 ± 9, P = .003). There were overall improvements in the Asthma Control Test score (from 14 ± 5 to 16 ± 6, P < .001), the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (from 4.29 ± 1.4 to 4.65 ± 1.5, P = .073), and the frequency of exacerbations over 6 months (from 2 [interquartile range, 0-4] to 0 [interquartile range, 0-2], P < .001). Conclusions: In patients referred with difficult asthma from respiratory specialists, a structured approach coupled with targeted comorbidity interventions improved control of key comorbidities and enhanced asthma outcomes.",
keywords = "Asthma, Comorbidity, Difficult, Severe, Systematic assessment",
author = "Tay, {Tunn Ren} and Joy Lee and Naghmeh Radhakrishna and Fiona Hore-Lacy and Robert Stirling and Ryan Hoy and Eli Dabscheck and Robyn O'Hehir and Mark Hew",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaip.2016.12.030",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "956--964.e3",
journal = "Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice",
issn = "2213-2198",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

A Structured Approach to Specialist-referred Difficult Asthma Patients Improves Control of Comorbidities and Enhances Asthma Outcomes. / Tay, Tunn Ren; Lee, Joy; Radhakrishna, Naghmeh; Hore-Lacy, Fiona; Stirling, Robert; Hoy, Ryan; Dabscheck, Eli; O'Hehir, Robyn; Hew, Mark.

In: Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, Vol. 5, No. 4, 07.2017, p. 956-964.e3.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Structured Approach to Specialist-referred Difficult Asthma Patients Improves Control of Comorbidities and Enhances Asthma Outcomes

AU - Tay, Tunn Ren

AU - Lee, Joy

AU - Radhakrishna, Naghmeh

AU - Hore-Lacy, Fiona

AU - Stirling, Robert

AU - Hoy, Ryan

AU - Dabscheck, Eli

AU - O'Hehir, Robyn

AU - Hew, Mark

PY - 2017/7

Y1 - 2017/7

N2 - Background: Systematic evaluation is advocated for difficult asthma, but how best to deliver such care is unclear and outcome data are scarce. Objective: We describe our institution's structured approach to difficult asthma management and report on the outcomes of such an approach. Methods: Eighty-two consecutive patients with difficult asthma referred to our clinic from respiratory specialists were evaluated in 3 key areas: diagnostic confirmation, comorbidity detection, and inflammatory phenotyping. We then optimized treatment including relevant comorbidity interventions. The outpatient protocol was supported by comorbidity questionnaires, an electronic clinic template, and standardized panel discussion. Asthma outcomes were assessed at 6 months. Results: Sixty-eight patients completed follow-up. Asthma diagnosis was refuted in 3 patients and the remaining 65 patients were included in the study analysis. There was no overall escalation of inhaled or oral corticosteroids. Patients had a median of 3 comorbidities, and a median of 3 comorbidity interventions. Control of chronic rhinosinusitis and dysfunctional breathing improved among patients with these diagnoses (22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score from 47 ± 20 to 37 ± 22, P = .017; Nijmegen score from 32 ± 6 to 25 ± 9, P = .003). There were overall improvements in the Asthma Control Test score (from 14 ± 5 to 16 ± 6, P < .001), the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (from 4.29 ± 1.4 to 4.65 ± 1.5, P = .073), and the frequency of exacerbations over 6 months (from 2 [interquartile range, 0-4] to 0 [interquartile range, 0-2], P < .001). Conclusions: In patients referred with difficult asthma from respiratory specialists, a structured approach coupled with targeted comorbidity interventions improved control of key comorbidities and enhanced asthma outcomes.

AB - Background: Systematic evaluation is advocated for difficult asthma, but how best to deliver such care is unclear and outcome data are scarce. Objective: We describe our institution's structured approach to difficult asthma management and report on the outcomes of such an approach. Methods: Eighty-two consecutive patients with difficult asthma referred to our clinic from respiratory specialists were evaluated in 3 key areas: diagnostic confirmation, comorbidity detection, and inflammatory phenotyping. We then optimized treatment including relevant comorbidity interventions. The outpatient protocol was supported by comorbidity questionnaires, an electronic clinic template, and standardized panel discussion. Asthma outcomes were assessed at 6 months. Results: Sixty-eight patients completed follow-up. Asthma diagnosis was refuted in 3 patients and the remaining 65 patients were included in the study analysis. There was no overall escalation of inhaled or oral corticosteroids. Patients had a median of 3 comorbidities, and a median of 3 comorbidity interventions. Control of chronic rhinosinusitis and dysfunctional breathing improved among patients with these diagnoses (22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test score from 47 ± 20 to 37 ± 22, P = .017; Nijmegen score from 32 ± 6 to 25 ± 9, P = .003). There were overall improvements in the Asthma Control Test score (from 14 ± 5 to 16 ± 6, P < .001), the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (from 4.29 ± 1.4 to 4.65 ± 1.5, P = .073), and the frequency of exacerbations over 6 months (from 2 [interquartile range, 0-4] to 0 [interquartile range, 0-2], P < .001). Conclusions: In patients referred with difficult asthma from respiratory specialists, a structured approach coupled with targeted comorbidity interventions improved control of key comorbidities and enhanced asthma outcomes.

KW - Asthma

KW - Comorbidity

KW - Difficult

KW - Severe

KW - Systematic assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015743971&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.12.030

DO - 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.12.030

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 956-964.e3

JO - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice

JF - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice

SN - 2213-2198

IS - 4

ER -