GINA Guidelines (gina + guideline)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Selected Abstracts

Childhood Asthma Control Test and airway inflammation evaluation in asthmatic children

ALLERGY, Issue 12 2009
G. L. Piacentini
Background:, The Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) has been proposed as a tool in assessing the level of disease control in asthmatic children. To evaluate the position of C-ACT in the clinical management of asthmatic children, in relationship to the level of airway inflammation as assessed by fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and with lung function. Methods:, A total of 200 asthmatic children were included in the study: 47 children with newly diagnosed asthma (,New') and without any regular controller therapy; and 153 children with previously diagnosed asthma, treated according to GINA guidelines, and evaluated during a scheduled follow-up visit (,Follow-up'). Childhood Asthma Control Test, FeNO and lung function [forced expiratory volume 1 (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC)] were evaluated. Results:, In New vs Follow-up participants, C-ACT score (P < 0.001), FVC (P < 0.005) and FEV1 (P < 0.05) were significantly lower, and FeNO (P = 0.011) were significantly higher. In New, but not in Follow-up participants, significant correlations were observed between C-ACT score and FeNO (r = ,0.51; P < 0.001), FEV1 (r = 0.34; P = 0.022) and FEV1/FVC (r = 0.32; P = 0.03). This lack of correlation in Follow-up visits seemed attributable to dissociation between inadequately controlled asthma by C-ACT ratings with normalization of other measures such as FeNO levels. Conclusions:, This study confirms and expands the concept that C-ACT is complementary to, but not a substitute for, other markers of disease control in asthmatic children, especially in the context of follow-up visits. [source]

Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy in the management of moderate to severe asthma

ALLERGY, Issue 12 2008
M. Humbert
The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines aim at improving asthma control and preventing future risk. For patients with moderate to severe asthma an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or an ICS/long-acting ,2 -agonist (LABA) combination with a short-acting ,2 -agonist (SABA) as reliever is recommended. Despite the availability of effective maintenance therapies, a large proportion of patients still fail to achieve guideline-defined asthma control, and overuse of SABA reliever medication at the expense of ICS is commonly observed. New simplified treatment approaches may offer a solution and assist physicians to achieve overall asthma control. One such treatment approach, which is recommended in the GINA guidelines, is budesonide/formoterol for both maintenance and reliever therapy. This treatment strategy significantly reduces the rate of severe asthma exacerbations compared with ICS/LABA plus SABA and achieves equivalent daily symptom control compared with higher doses of ICS/LABA plus separate SABA for relief. These benefits are achieved at a lower overall steroid load, and budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy is well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe asthma. This review discusses current asthma management in patients with moderate to severe disease and examines the evidence for alternative asthma management approaches. [source]

Asthma control or severity: that is the question

ALLERGY, Issue 2 2007
M. Humbert
In the first National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, the level of symptoms and airflow limitation and its variability allowed asthma to be subdivided by severity into four subcategories (intermittent, mild persistent, moderate persistent, and severe persistent). It is important to recognize, however, that asthma severity involves both the severity of the underlying disease and its responsiveness to treatment. Thus, the first update of the GINA guidelines defined asthma severity depending on the clinical features already proposed as well as the current treatment of the patient. In addition, severity is not a fixed feature of asthma, but may change over months or years, whereas the classification by severity suggests a static feature. Moreover, using severity as an outcome measure has limited value in predicting what treatment will be required and what the response to that treatment might be. Because of these considerations, the classification of asthma severity is no longer recommended as the basis for treatment decisions, a periodic assessment of asthma control being more relevant and useful. [source]

GINA guidelines on asthma and beyond,

ALLERGY, Issue 2 2007
J. Bousquet
,Clinical guidelines are systematically developed statements designed to help practitioners and patients make decisions regarding the appropriate health care for specific circumstances. Guidelines are based on the scientific evidence on therapeutic interventions. The first asthma guidelines were published in the mid 1980s when asthma became a recognized public health problem in many countries. The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) was launched in 1995 as a collaborative effort between the NHLBI and the World Health Organization (WHO). The first edition was opinion-based but updates were evidence-based. A new update of the GINA guidelines was recently available and it is based on the control of the disease. Asthma guidelines are prepared to stimulate the implementation of practical guidelines in order to reduce the global burden of asthma. Although asthma guidelines may not be perfect, they appear to be the best vehicle available to assist primary care physicians and patients to receive the best possible care of asthma. [source]

Presentation of new GINA guidelines for paediatrics

Von Mutius
The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) has provided guidelines for the management of children with asthma. For a step-wise approach to therapy, asthma is divided into four categories based on severity of symptoms: intermittent, mild persistent, moderate persistent, and severe persistent asthma. Long-term preventive therapy is distinguished from quick relief therapy in each group. Although these guidelines are clear and simple there have been few studies on asthma therapy for infants. Moreover, the existence of different wheezing phenotypes with varying pathogenic mechanisms hampers the interpretation of these studies. Transient wheezers have stopped wheezing by the age of 3 years and there is no relationship to atopy or a family history of asthma. In contrast, persistent wheezers continue to wheeze from the first year of life throughout school-age and have a high risk of atopy. Although they have normal lung function at birth, persistent wheezers develop significant decrements in lung function by the age of 6 years. Whether these impairments are amenable to prevention by early initiation of anti-inflammatory therapy remains to be seen. At present, there are no disease markers to identify the different wheezing phenotypes in infancy, although eosinophil counts and measurements of eosinophil cationic protein in serum may prove to be helpful in distinguishing these conditions. [source]