Help patients gain better asthma control

JJ, a 4-year-old boy, was taken to an urgent care clinic 3 times last winter for “recurrent bronchitis” and given a 7-day course of prednisone and antibiotics at each visit. His mother reports that “his colds always seem to go to his chest” and his skin is always dry. She was given a nebulizer and albuterol for use when JJ begins wheezing, which often happens when he has a cold, plays vigorously, or visits a friend who has cats.

JJ is one of approximately 6.7 million children—and 22.9 million US residents—who have asthma.¹ To help guide the care of patients like JJ, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) released the third expert panel report (EPR-3) in 2007. Available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/asthgdln.htm, the EPR-3 provides the most comprehensive evidence-based guidance for the diagnosis and management of asthma to date.²

The guidelines were an invaluable resource for JJ’s family physician, who referred to them to categorize the severity of JJ’s asthma as “mild persistent.” In initiating treatment, JJ’s physician relied on specific recommendations for children 0 to 4 years of age to prescribe low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Without the new guidelines, which underscore the safety of controller medication for young children, JJ’s physician would likely have been reluctant to place a 4-year-old on ICS.

This review highlights the EPR-3’s key recommendations to encourage widespread implementation by family physicians.

The EPR-3: What’s changed

The 2007 guidelines:
Recommend assessing asthma severity before starting treatment and assessing asthma control to guide adjustments in treatment.
Address both severity and control in terms of impairment and risk.
Feature 3 age breakdowns (0-4 years, 5-11 years, and ≥12 years) and a 6-step approach to asthma management.
Make it easier to individualize and adjust treatment.

What’s changed?

There’s a new paradigm

The 2007 update to guidelines released in 1997 and 2002 reflects a paradigm shift in the overall approach to asthma management. The change in focus addresses the highly variable nature of asthma² and the recognition that asthma severity and asthma control are distinct concepts serving different functions in clinical practice.

Severity and control in 2 domains. Asthma severity—a measure of the intrinsic intensity of the disease process—is ideally assessed before initiating treatment. In contrast, asthma control is monitored over time to guide adjustments to therapy. The guidelines call for assessing severity and control within the domains of:

• impairment, based on asthma symptoms (identified by patient or caregiver recall of the past 2-4 weeks), quality of life, and functional limitations; and
• risk, of asthma exacerbations, progressive decline in pulmonary function (or reduced lung growth in children), or adverse events. Predictors of increased risk for exacerbations or death include persistent and/or severe airflow obstruction; at least 2 visits to the emergency department or hospitalizations for asthma within the past year; and a history of intubation or admission to intensive care, especially within the past 5 years.

The specific criteria for determining asthma severity and assessing asthma control are detailed in FIGURES 1 AND 2, respectively. Because treatment affects impairment and risk differently, this dual assessment helps ensure that therapeutic interventions minimize all manifestations of asthma as much as possible.

More steps and age-specific interventions. The EPR-3’s stepwise approach to asthma therapy has gone from 4 steps to 6, and the recommended treatments, as well as the levels of severity and criteria for assessing control that guide them, are now divided into 3 age groups: 0 to 4 years, 5 to 11 years, and ≥12 years (FIGURE 3). The previous guidelines, issued in 2002, divided treatment recommendations into 2 age groups: ≤5 years and >5 years. The EPR-3’s expansion makes it easier for physicians to initiate, individualize, and adjust treatment.

FIGURE 1
Classifying asthma severity and initiating therapy in children, adolescents, and adults

FIGURE 2
Assessing asthma control and adjusting therapy

FIGURE 3
Stepwise approach for managing asthma

Putting guidelines into practice begins with the history

A detailed medical history and a physical examination focusing on the upper respiratory tract, chest, and skin are needed to arrive at an asthma diagnosis. JJ’s physician asked his mother to describe recent symptoms and inquired about comorbid conditions that can aggravate asthma. He also identified viral respiratory infections, environmental causes, and activity as precipitating factors.

In considering an asthma diagnosis, try to determine the presence of episodic symptoms of airflow obstruction or bronchial hyperresponsiveness, as well as airflow obstruction that is at least partly reversible (an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] of >200 mL and ≥12% from baseline or an increase of ≥10% of predicted FEV₁), and to exclude alternative diagnoses.

EPR-3 emphasizes spirometry

Recognizing that patients’ perception of airflow obstruction is highly variable and that pulmonary function measures do not always correlate directly with symptoms,^3,4 the EPR-3 recommends spirometry for patients ≥5 years of age, both before and after bronchodilation. In addition to helping to confirm an asthma diagnosis, spirometry is the preferred measure of pulmonary function in classifying severity, because peak expiratory flow (PEF) testing has not proven reliable.^5,6

Objective measurement of pulmonary function is difficult to obtain in children <5 years of age. If diagnosis remains uncertain for patients in this age group, a therapeutic trial of medication is recommended. In JJ’s case, however, 3 courses of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in less than 6 months were indicative of persistent asthma.

Spirometry is often underutilized. For patients ≥5 years of age, spirometry is a vital tool, but often underutilized in family practice. A recent study by Yawn and colleagues found that family physicians made changes in the management of approximately half of the asthma patients who underwent spirometry.⁷ (Information about spirometry training is available through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh.) Referral to a specialist is recommended if the physician has difficulty making a differential diagnosis or is unable to perform spirometry on a patient who presents with atypical signs and symptoms of asthma.

What is the patient’s level of severity?

In patients who are not yet receiving long-term controller therapy, severity level is based on an assessment of impairment and risk (FIGURE 1). For patients who are already receiving treatment, severity is determined by the minimum pharmacologic therapy needed to maintain asthma control.

The severity classification—intermittent asthma or persistent asthma that is mild, moderate, or severe—is determined by the most severe category in which any feature occurs. (In children, FEV₁/FVC [forced vital capacity] ratio has been shown to be a more sensitive determinant of severity than FEV₁,⁴ which may be more useful in predicting exacerbations.⁸)

Asthma management: Preferred and alternative Tx

The recommended stepwise interventions include both preferred therapies (evidence-based) and alternative treatments (listed alphabetically in FIGURE 3 because there is insufficient evidence to rank them). The additional steps and age categories support the goal of using the least possible medication needed to maintain good control and minimize the potential for adverse events.

In initiating treatment, select the step that corresponds to the level of severity in the bottom row of FIGURE 1; to adjust medications, determine the patient’s level of asthma control and follow the corresponding guidance in the bottom row of FIGURE 2.

Inhaled corticosteroids remain the bedrock of therapy

ICS, the most potent and consistently effective long-term controller therapy, remain the foundation of therapy for patients of all ages who have persistent asthma. (Evidence: A).

Several of the age-based recommendations follow, with a focus on preferred treatments:

Children 0 to 4 years of age

• The guidelines recommend low-dose ICS at Step 2 (Evidence: A) and medium-dose ICS at Step 3 (Evidence: D), as inhaled corticosteroids have been shown to reduce impairment and risk in this age group.^9-16 The potential risk is generally limited to a small reduction in growth velocity during the first year of treatment, and offset by the benefits of therapy.^15,16
• Add a long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonist (LABA) or montelukast to medium-dose ICS therapy at Step 4 rather than increasing the ICS dose (Evidence: D) to avoid the risk of side effects associated with high-dose ICS. Montelukast has demonstrated efficacy in children 2 to 5 years of age with persistent asthma.¹⁷
• Recommendations for preferred therapy at Steps 5 (high-dose ICS + LABA or montelukast) and 6 (Step 5 therapy + OCS) are based on expert panel judgment (Evidence: D). When severe persistent asthma warrants Step 6 therapy, start with a 2-week course of the lowest possible dose of OCS to confirm reversibility.
• In this age group, a therapeutic trial with close monitoring is recommended for patients whose asthma is not well controlled. If there is no response in 4 to 6 weeks, consider alternative therapies or diagnoses (Evidence: D).

Children 5 to 11 years of age

• For Step 3 therapy, the guidelines recommend either low-dose ICS plus a LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), or theophylline; or medium-dose ICS (Evidence: B). Treatment decisions at Step 3 depend on whether impairment or risk is the chief concern, as well as on safety considerations.
• For Steps 4 and 5, ICS (medium dose for Step 5 and high dose for Step 6) plus a LABA is preferred, based on studies of patients ≥12 years of age (Evidence: B). Step 6 builds on Step 5, adding an OCS to the LABA/ICS combination (Evidence: D).
• If theophylline is prescribed—a viable option if cost and adherence to inhaled medications are key concerns—serum levels must be closely monitored because of the risk of toxicity.
• Closely monitor and be prepared to identify and respond to anaphylaxis in a child at Step 2, 3, or 4 who is receiving allergen immunotherapy.

Adolescents ≥12 years of age and adults

• There are 2 preferred Step 3 treatments: Low-dose ICS plus a LABA, or medium-dose ICS. The combination therapy has shown greater improvement in impairment^24,25 and risk^24-26 compared with the higher dose of ICS.
• Preferred treatments at Steps 4, 5, and 6 are the same as those for children ages 5 to 11 years, with one exception: Subcutaneous anti-IgE therapy (omalizumab) may be added to the regimen at Steps 5 and 6 for adolescents and adults with severe persistent allergic asthma to reduce the risk of exacerbations.²⁷

Weigh the benefits and risks of therapy

Safety is a key consideration for all asthma patients. Carefully weigh the benefits and risks of therapy, including the rare but potential risk of life-threatening or fatal exacerbations with daily LABA therapy²⁸ and systemic effects with higher doses of ICS.²³ Patients who begin receiving oral corticosteroids require close monitoring, regardless of age.

Regular reassessment and monitoring are critical

Schedule visits at 2- to 6-week intervals for those who are starting therapy or require a step up to achieve or regain asthma control. After control is achieved, reassess at least every 1 to 6 months. Measures of asthma control are the same as those used to assess severity, with the addition of validated multidimensional questionnaires (eg, Asthma Control Test [ACT])²⁹ to gauge impairment.

JJ’s physician scheduled a follow-up visit in 4 weeks, at which time he did a reassessment based on a physical exam and symptom recall. Finding JJ’s asthma to be well controlled, the physician asked the boy’s mother to bring him back to the office in 2 months, or earlier if symptoms recurred.

TABLE W1
Asthma education resources

Does your patient require a step down or step up?

A step down is recommended for patients whose asthma is well controlled for 3 months or more. Reduce the dose of ICS gradually, about 25% to 50% every 3 months, because deterioration in asthma control is highly variable. Review adherence and medication administration technique with patients whose asthma is not well controlled, and consider a step up in treatment. If an alternative treatment is used but does not result in an adequate response, it should be discontinued and the preferred treatment used before stepping up. Refer patients to an asthma specialist if their asthma does not respond to these adjustments.

Partner with patients for optimal care

The EPR-3 recommends the integration of patient education into all aspects of asthma care. To forge an active partnership, identify and address concerns about the condition and its treatment and involve the patient and family in developing treatment goals and making treatment decisions. If the patient is old enough, encourage self-monitoring and management.

The EPR-3 recommends that physicians give every patient a written asthma action plan that addresses individual symptoms and/or PEF measurements and includes instructions for self-management. Daily PEF monitoring can be useful in identifying early changes in the disease state and evaluating response to changes in therapy. It is ideal for those who have moderate to severe persistent asthma, difficulty recognizing signs of exacerbations, or a history of severe exacerbations.

Correspondence
Stuart W. Stoloff, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada–Reno, 1200 Mountain Street, Suite 220, Carson City, NV 89703; drstoloff@sbcglobal.net.

JJ, a 4-year-old boy, was taken to an urgent care clinic 3 times last winter for “recurrent bronchitis” and given a 7-day course of prednisone and antibiotics at each visit. His mother reports that “his colds always seem to go to his chest” and his skin is always dry. She was given a nebulizer and albuterol for use when JJ begins wheezing, which often happens when he has a cold, plays vigorously, or visits a friend who has cats.

JJ is one of approximately 6.7 million children—and 22.9 million US residents—who have asthma.¹ To help guide the care of patients like JJ, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) released the third expert panel report (EPR-3) in 2007. Available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/asthgdln.htm, the EPR-3 provides the most comprehensive evidence-based guidance for the diagnosis and management of asthma to date.²

The guidelines were an invaluable resource for JJ’s family physician, who referred to them to categorize the severity of JJ’s asthma as “mild persistent.” In initiating treatment, JJ’s physician relied on specific recommendations for children 0 to 4 years of age to prescribe low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Without the new guidelines, which underscore the safety of controller medication for young children, JJ’s physician would likely have been reluctant to place a 4-year-old on ICS.

This review highlights the EPR-3’s key recommendations to encourage widespread implementation by family physicians.

The EPR-3: What’s changed

The 2007 guidelines:
Recommend assessing asthma severity before starting treatment and assessing asthma control to guide adjustments in treatment.
Address both severity and control in terms of impairment and risk.
Feature 3 age breakdowns (0-4 years, 5-11 years, and ≥12 years) and a 6-step approach to asthma management.
Make it easier to individualize and adjust treatment.

What’s changed?

There’s a new paradigm

The 2007 update to guidelines released in 1997 and 2002 reflects a paradigm shift in the overall approach to asthma management. The change in focus addresses the highly variable nature of asthma² and the recognition that asthma severity and asthma control are distinct concepts serving different functions in clinical practice.

Severity and control in 2 domains. Asthma severity—a measure of the intrinsic intensity of the disease process—is ideally assessed before initiating treatment. In contrast, asthma control is monitored over time to guide adjustments to therapy. The guidelines call for assessing severity and control within the domains of:

• impairment, based on asthma symptoms (identified by patient or caregiver recall of the past 2-4 weeks), quality of life, and functional limitations; and
• risk, of asthma exacerbations, progressive decline in pulmonary function (or reduced lung growth in children), or adverse events. Predictors of increased risk for exacerbations or death include persistent and/or severe airflow obstruction; at least 2 visits to the emergency department or hospitalizations for asthma within the past year; and a history of intubation or admission to intensive care, especially within the past 5 years.

The specific criteria for determining asthma severity and assessing asthma control are detailed in FIGURES 1 AND 2, respectively. Because treatment affects impairment and risk differently, this dual assessment helps ensure that therapeutic interventions minimize all manifestations of asthma as much as possible.

More steps and age-specific interventions. The EPR-3’s stepwise approach to asthma therapy has gone from 4 steps to 6, and the recommended treatments, as well as the levels of severity and criteria for assessing control that guide them, are now divided into 3 age groups: 0 to 4 years, 5 to 11 years, and ≥12 years (FIGURE 3). The previous guidelines, issued in 2002, divided treatment recommendations into 2 age groups: ≤5 years and >5 years. The EPR-3’s expansion makes it easier for physicians to initiate, individualize, and adjust treatment.

FIGURE 1
Classifying asthma severity and initiating therapy in children, adolescents, and adults

FIGURE 2
Assessing asthma control and adjusting therapy

FIGURE 3
Stepwise approach for managing asthma

Putting guidelines into practice begins with the history

A detailed medical history and a physical examination focusing on the upper respiratory tract, chest, and skin are needed to arrive at an asthma diagnosis. JJ’s physician asked his mother to describe recent symptoms and inquired about comorbid conditions that can aggravate asthma. He also identified viral respiratory infections, environmental causes, and activity as precipitating factors.

In considering an asthma diagnosis, try to determine the presence of episodic symptoms of airflow obstruction or bronchial hyperresponsiveness, as well as airflow obstruction that is at least partly reversible (an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] of >200 mL and ≥12% from baseline or an increase of ≥10% of predicted FEV₁), and to exclude alternative diagnoses.

EPR-3 emphasizes spirometry

Recognizing that patients’ perception of airflow obstruction is highly variable and that pulmonary function measures do not always correlate directly with symptoms,^3,4 the EPR-3 recommends spirometry for patients ≥5 years of age, both before and after bronchodilation. In addition to helping to confirm an asthma diagnosis, spirometry is the preferred measure of pulmonary function in classifying severity, because peak expiratory flow (PEF) testing has not proven reliable.^5,6

Objective measurement of pulmonary function is difficult to obtain in children <5 years of age. If diagnosis remains uncertain for patients in this age group, a therapeutic trial of medication is recommended. In JJ’s case, however, 3 courses of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in less than 6 months were indicative of persistent asthma.

Spirometry is often underutilized. For patients ≥5 years of age, spirometry is a vital tool, but often underutilized in family practice. A recent study by Yawn and colleagues found that family physicians made changes in the management of approximately half of the asthma patients who underwent spirometry.⁷ (Information about spirometry training is available through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh.) Referral to a specialist is recommended if the physician has difficulty making a differential diagnosis or is unable to perform spirometry on a patient who presents with atypical signs and symptoms of asthma.

What is the patient’s level of severity?

In patients who are not yet receiving long-term controller therapy, severity level is based on an assessment of impairment and risk (FIGURE 1). For patients who are already receiving treatment, severity is determined by the minimum pharmacologic therapy needed to maintain asthma control.

The severity classification—intermittent asthma or persistent asthma that is mild, moderate, or severe—is determined by the most severe category in which any feature occurs. (In children, FEV₁/FVC [forced vital capacity] ratio has been shown to be a more sensitive determinant of severity than FEV₁,⁴ which may be more useful in predicting exacerbations.⁸)

Asthma management: Preferred and alternative Tx

The recommended stepwise interventions include both preferred therapies (evidence-based) and alternative treatments (listed alphabetically in FIGURE 3 because there is insufficient evidence to rank them). The additional steps and age categories support the goal of using the least possible medication needed to maintain good control and minimize the potential for adverse events.

In initiating treatment, select the step that corresponds to the level of severity in the bottom row of FIGURE 1; to adjust medications, determine the patient’s level of asthma control and follow the corresponding guidance in the bottom row of FIGURE 2.

Inhaled corticosteroids remain the bedrock of therapy

ICS, the most potent and consistently effective long-term controller therapy, remain the foundation of therapy for patients of all ages who have persistent asthma. (Evidence: A).

Several of the age-based recommendations follow, with a focus on preferred treatments:

Children 0 to 4 years of age

• The guidelines recommend low-dose ICS at Step 2 (Evidence: A) and medium-dose ICS at Step 3 (Evidence: D), as inhaled corticosteroids have been shown to reduce impairment and risk in this age group.^9-16 The potential risk is generally limited to a small reduction in growth velocity during the first year of treatment, and offset by the benefits of therapy.^15,16
• Add a long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonist (LABA) or montelukast to medium-dose ICS therapy at Step 4 rather than increasing the ICS dose (Evidence: D) to avoid the risk of side effects associated with high-dose ICS. Montelukast has demonstrated efficacy in children 2 to 5 years of age with persistent asthma.¹⁷
• Recommendations for preferred therapy at Steps 5 (high-dose ICS + LABA or montelukast) and 6 (Step 5 therapy + OCS) are based on expert panel judgment (Evidence: D). When severe persistent asthma warrants Step 6 therapy, start with a 2-week course of the lowest possible dose of OCS to confirm reversibility.
• In this age group, a therapeutic trial with close monitoring is recommended for patients whose asthma is not well controlled. If there is no response in 4 to 6 weeks, consider alternative therapies or diagnoses (Evidence: D).

Children 5 to 11 years of age

• For Step 3 therapy, the guidelines recommend either low-dose ICS plus a LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), or theophylline; or medium-dose ICS (Evidence: B). Treatment decisions at Step 3 depend on whether impairment or risk is the chief concern, as well as on safety considerations.
• For Steps 4 and 5, ICS (medium dose for Step 5 and high dose for Step 6) plus a LABA is preferred, based on studies of patients ≥12 years of age (Evidence: B). Step 6 builds on Step 5, adding an OCS to the LABA/ICS combination (Evidence: D).
• If theophylline is prescribed—a viable option if cost and adherence to inhaled medications are key concerns—serum levels must be closely monitored because of the risk of toxicity.
• Closely monitor and be prepared to identify and respond to anaphylaxis in a child at Step 2, 3, or 4 who is receiving allergen immunotherapy.

Adolescents ≥12 years of age and adults

• There are 2 preferred Step 3 treatments: Low-dose ICS plus a LABA, or medium-dose ICS. The combination therapy has shown greater improvement in impairment^24,25 and risk^24-26 compared with the higher dose of ICS.
• Preferred treatments at Steps 4, 5, and 6 are the same as those for children ages 5 to 11 years, with one exception: Subcutaneous anti-IgE therapy (omalizumab) may be added to the regimen at Steps 5 and 6 for adolescents and adults with severe persistent allergic asthma to reduce the risk of exacerbations.²⁷

Weigh the benefits and risks of therapy

Safety is a key consideration for all asthma patients. Carefully weigh the benefits and risks of therapy, including the rare but potential risk of life-threatening or fatal exacerbations with daily LABA therapy²⁸ and systemic effects with higher doses of ICS.²³ Patients who begin receiving oral corticosteroids require close monitoring, regardless of age.

Regular reassessment and monitoring are critical

Schedule visits at 2- to 6-week intervals for those who are starting therapy or require a step up to achieve or regain asthma control. After control is achieved, reassess at least every 1 to 6 months. Measures of asthma control are the same as those used to assess severity, with the addition of validated multidimensional questionnaires (eg, Asthma Control Test [ACT])²⁹ to gauge impairment.

JJ’s physician scheduled a follow-up visit in 4 weeks, at which time he did a reassessment based on a physical exam and symptom recall. Finding JJ’s asthma to be well controlled, the physician asked the boy’s mother to bring him back to the office in 2 months, or earlier if symptoms recurred.

TABLE W1
Asthma education resources

Does your patient require a step down or step up?

A step down is recommended for patients whose asthma is well controlled for 3 months or more. Reduce the dose of ICS gradually, about 25% to 50% every 3 months, because deterioration in asthma control is highly variable. Review adherence and medication administration technique with patients whose asthma is not well controlled, and consider a step up in treatment. If an alternative treatment is used but does not result in an adequate response, it should be discontinued and the preferred treatment used before stepping up. Refer patients to an asthma specialist if their asthma does not respond to these adjustments.

Partner with patients for optimal care

The EPR-3 recommends the integration of patient education into all aspects of asthma care. To forge an active partnership, identify and address concerns about the condition and its treatment and involve the patient and family in developing treatment goals and making treatment decisions. If the patient is old enough, encourage self-monitoring and management.

The EPR-3 recommends that physicians give every patient a written asthma action plan that addresses individual symptoms and/or PEF measurements and includes instructions for self-management. Daily PEF monitoring can be useful in identifying early changes in the disease state and evaluating response to changes in therapy. It is ideal for those who have moderate to severe persistent asthma, difficulty recognizing signs of exacerbations, or a history of severe exacerbations.

Correspondence
Stuart W. Stoloff, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada–Reno, 1200 Mountain Street, Suite 220, Carson City, NV 89703; drstoloff@sbcglobal.net.

JJ, a 4-year-old boy, was taken to an urgent care clinic 3 times last winter for “recurrent bronchitis” and given a 7-day course of prednisone and antibiotics at each visit. His mother reports that “his colds always seem to go to his chest” and his skin is always dry. She was given a nebulizer and albuterol for use when JJ begins wheezing, which often happens when he has a cold, plays vigorously, or visits a friend who has cats.

JJ is one of approximately 6.7 million children—and 22.9 million US residents—who have asthma.¹ To help guide the care of patients like JJ, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) released the third expert panel report (EPR-3) in 2007. Available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/asthgdln.htm, the EPR-3 provides the most comprehensive evidence-based guidance for the diagnosis and management of asthma to date.²

The guidelines were an invaluable resource for JJ’s family physician, who referred to them to categorize the severity of JJ’s asthma as “mild persistent.” In initiating treatment, JJ’s physician relied on specific recommendations for children 0 to 4 years of age to prescribe low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Without the new guidelines, which underscore the safety of controller medication for young children, JJ’s physician would likely have been reluctant to place a 4-year-old on ICS.

This review highlights the EPR-3’s key recommendations to encourage widespread implementation by family physicians.

The EPR-3: What’s changed

The 2007 guidelines:
Recommend assessing asthma severity before starting treatment and assessing asthma control to guide adjustments in treatment.
Address both severity and control in terms of impairment and risk.
Feature 3 age breakdowns (0-4 years, 5-11 years, and ≥12 years) and a 6-step approach to asthma management.
Make it easier to individualize and adjust treatment.

What’s changed?

There’s a new paradigm

The 2007 update to guidelines released in 1997 and 2002 reflects a paradigm shift in the overall approach to asthma management. The change in focus addresses the highly variable nature of asthma² and the recognition that asthma severity and asthma control are distinct concepts serving different functions in clinical practice.

Severity and control in 2 domains. Asthma severity—a measure of the intrinsic intensity of the disease process—is ideally assessed before initiating treatment. In contrast, asthma control is monitored over time to guide adjustments to therapy. The guidelines call for assessing severity and control within the domains of:

• impairment, based on asthma symptoms (identified by patient or caregiver recall of the past 2-4 weeks), quality of life, and functional limitations; and
• risk, of asthma exacerbations, progressive decline in pulmonary function (or reduced lung growth in children), or adverse events. Predictors of increased risk for exacerbations or death include persistent and/or severe airflow obstruction; at least 2 visits to the emergency department or hospitalizations for asthma within the past year; and a history of intubation or admission to intensive care, especially within the past 5 years.

The specific criteria for determining asthma severity and assessing asthma control are detailed in FIGURES 1 AND 2, respectively. Because treatment affects impairment and risk differently, this dual assessment helps ensure that therapeutic interventions minimize all manifestations of asthma as much as possible.

More steps and age-specific interventions. The EPR-3’s stepwise approach to asthma therapy has gone from 4 steps to 6, and the recommended treatments, as well as the levels of severity and criteria for assessing control that guide them, are now divided into 3 age groups: 0 to 4 years, 5 to 11 years, and ≥12 years (FIGURE 3). The previous guidelines, issued in 2002, divided treatment recommendations into 2 age groups: ≤5 years and >5 years. The EPR-3’s expansion makes it easier for physicians to initiate, individualize, and adjust treatment.

FIGURE 1
Classifying asthma severity and initiating therapy in children, adolescents, and adults

FIGURE 2
Assessing asthma control and adjusting therapy

FIGURE 3
Stepwise approach for managing asthma

Putting guidelines into practice begins with the history

A detailed medical history and a physical examination focusing on the upper respiratory tract, chest, and skin are needed to arrive at an asthma diagnosis. JJ’s physician asked his mother to describe recent symptoms and inquired about comorbid conditions that can aggravate asthma. He also identified viral respiratory infections, environmental causes, and activity as precipitating factors.

In considering an asthma diagnosis, try to determine the presence of episodic symptoms of airflow obstruction or bronchial hyperresponsiveness, as well as airflow obstruction that is at least partly reversible (an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] of >200 mL and ≥12% from baseline or an increase of ≥10% of predicted FEV₁), and to exclude alternative diagnoses.

EPR-3 emphasizes spirometry

Recognizing that patients’ perception of airflow obstruction is highly variable and that pulmonary function measures do not always correlate directly with symptoms,^3,4 the EPR-3 recommends spirometry for patients ≥5 years of age, both before and after bronchodilation. In addition to helping to confirm an asthma diagnosis, spirometry is the preferred measure of pulmonary function in classifying severity, because peak expiratory flow (PEF) testing has not proven reliable.^5,6

Objective measurement of pulmonary function is difficult to obtain in children <5 years of age. If diagnosis remains uncertain for patients in this age group, a therapeutic trial of medication is recommended. In JJ’s case, however, 3 courses of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in less than 6 months were indicative of persistent asthma.

Spirometry is often underutilized. For patients ≥5 years of age, spirometry is a vital tool, but often underutilized in family practice. A recent study by Yawn and colleagues found that family physicians made changes in the management of approximately half of the asthma patients who underwent spirometry.⁷ (Information about spirometry training is available through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh.) Referral to a specialist is recommended if the physician has difficulty making a differential diagnosis or is unable to perform spirometry on a patient who presents with atypical signs and symptoms of asthma.

What is the patient’s level of severity?

In patients who are not yet receiving long-term controller therapy, severity level is based on an assessment of impairment and risk (FIGURE 1). For patients who are already receiving treatment, severity is determined by the minimum pharmacologic therapy needed to maintain asthma control.

The severity classification—intermittent asthma or persistent asthma that is mild, moderate, or severe—is determined by the most severe category in which any feature occurs. (In children, FEV₁/FVC [forced vital capacity] ratio has been shown to be a more sensitive determinant of severity than FEV₁,⁴ which may be more useful in predicting exacerbations.⁸)

Asthma management: Preferred and alternative Tx

The recommended stepwise interventions include both preferred therapies (evidence-based) and alternative treatments (listed alphabetically in FIGURE 3 because there is insufficient evidence to rank them). The additional steps and age categories support the goal of using the least possible medication needed to maintain good control and minimize the potential for adverse events.

In initiating treatment, select the step that corresponds to the level of severity in the bottom row of FIGURE 1; to adjust medications, determine the patient’s level of asthma control and follow the corresponding guidance in the bottom row of FIGURE 2.

Inhaled corticosteroids remain the bedrock of therapy

ICS, the most potent and consistently effective long-term controller therapy, remain the foundation of therapy for patients of all ages who have persistent asthma. (Evidence: A).

Several of the age-based recommendations follow, with a focus on preferred treatments:

Children 0 to 4 years of age

• The guidelines recommend low-dose ICS at Step 2 (Evidence: A) and medium-dose ICS at Step 3 (Evidence: D), as inhaled corticosteroids have been shown to reduce impairment and risk in this age group.^9-16 The potential risk is generally limited to a small reduction in growth velocity during the first year of treatment, and offset by the benefits of therapy.^15,16
• Add a long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonist (LABA) or montelukast to medium-dose ICS therapy at Step 4 rather than increasing the ICS dose (Evidence: D) to avoid the risk of side effects associated with high-dose ICS. Montelukast has demonstrated efficacy in children 2 to 5 years of age with persistent asthma.¹⁷
• Recommendations for preferred therapy at Steps 5 (high-dose ICS + LABA or montelukast) and 6 (Step 5 therapy + OCS) are based on expert panel judgment (Evidence: D). When severe persistent asthma warrants Step 6 therapy, start with a 2-week course of the lowest possible dose of OCS to confirm reversibility.
• In this age group, a therapeutic trial with close monitoring is recommended for patients whose asthma is not well controlled. If there is no response in 4 to 6 weeks, consider alternative therapies or diagnoses (Evidence: D).

Children 5 to 11 years of age

• For Step 3 therapy, the guidelines recommend either low-dose ICS plus a LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), or theophylline; or medium-dose ICS (Evidence: B). Treatment decisions at Step 3 depend on whether impairment or risk is the chief concern, as well as on safety considerations.
• For Steps 4 and 5, ICS (medium dose for Step 5 and high dose for Step 6) plus a LABA is preferred, based on studies of patients ≥12 years of age (Evidence: B). Step 6 builds on Step 5, adding an OCS to the LABA/ICS combination (Evidence: D).
• If theophylline is prescribed—a viable option if cost and adherence to inhaled medications are key concerns—serum levels must be closely monitored because of the risk of toxicity.
• Closely monitor and be prepared to identify and respond to anaphylaxis in a child at Step 2, 3, or 4 who is receiving allergen immunotherapy.

Adolescents ≥12 years of age and adults

• There are 2 preferred Step 3 treatments: Low-dose ICS plus a LABA, or medium-dose ICS. The combination therapy has shown greater improvement in impairment^24,25 and risk^24-26 compared with the higher dose of ICS.
• Preferred treatments at Steps 4, 5, and 6 are the same as those for children ages 5 to 11 years, with one exception: Subcutaneous anti-IgE therapy (omalizumab) may be added to the regimen at Steps 5 and 6 for adolescents and adults with severe persistent allergic asthma to reduce the risk of exacerbations.²⁷

Weigh the benefits and risks of therapy

Safety is a key consideration for all asthma patients. Carefully weigh the benefits and risks of therapy, including the rare but potential risk of life-threatening or fatal exacerbations with daily LABA therapy²⁸ and systemic effects with higher doses of ICS.²³ Patients who begin receiving oral corticosteroids require close monitoring, regardless of age.

Regular reassessment and monitoring are critical

Schedule visits at 2- to 6-week intervals for those who are starting therapy or require a step up to achieve or regain asthma control. After control is achieved, reassess at least every 1 to 6 months. Measures of asthma control are the same as those used to assess severity, with the addition of validated multidimensional questionnaires (eg, Asthma Control Test [ACT])²⁹ to gauge impairment.

JJ’s physician scheduled a follow-up visit in 4 weeks, at which time he did a reassessment based on a physical exam and symptom recall. Finding JJ’s asthma to be well controlled, the physician asked the boy’s mother to bring him back to the office in 2 months, or earlier if symptoms recurred.

TABLE W1
Asthma education resources

Does your patient require a step down or step up?

A step down is recommended for patients whose asthma is well controlled for 3 months or more. Reduce the dose of ICS gradually, about 25% to 50% every 3 months, because deterioration in asthma control is highly variable. Review adherence and medication administration technique with patients whose asthma is not well controlled, and consider a step up in treatment. If an alternative treatment is used but does not result in an adequate response, it should be discontinued and the preferred treatment used before stepping up. Refer patients to an asthma specialist if their asthma does not respond to these adjustments.

Partner with patients for optimal care

The EPR-3 recommends the integration of patient education into all aspects of asthma care. To forge an active partnership, identify and address concerns about the condition and its treatment and involve the patient and family in developing treatment goals and making treatment decisions. If the patient is old enough, encourage self-monitoring and management.

The EPR-3 recommends that physicians give every patient a written asthma action plan that addresses individual symptoms and/or PEF measurements and includes instructions for self-management. Daily PEF monitoring can be useful in identifying early changes in the disease state and evaluating response to changes in therapy. It is ideal for those who have moderate to severe persistent asthma, difficulty recognizing signs of exacerbations, or a history of severe exacerbations.

Correspondence
Stuart W. Stoloff, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada–Reno, 1200 Mountain Street, Suite 220, Carson City, NV 89703; drstoloff@sbcglobal.net.