Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006 Jun 15;38(1):19-24.
doi: 10.1157/13090025.

[Primary care asthma treatment: Are we following international consensus (GINA 2002)?]

[Article in Spanish]
Xavier Flor  1 , Isabel Alvarez, Eva Martín, Xavier Castan, Josep Maria Vigatà, Montserrat Rodríguez, Francesc Orfila, Eladi Fernández
Affiliations
Comparative Study

[Primary care asthma treatment: Are we following international consensus (GINA 2002)?]

[Article in Spanish]
Xavier Flor et al. Aten Primaria. .

Abstract
in English, Spanish

Objective: To check whether treatment of asthma patients at our centre coincides with international criteria (GINA 2002).

Design: Transversal, descriptive study.

Setting: Urban primary care team.

Participants: Asthma patients over 14 years old.

Main measurements: Review of clinical histories (CH) and analysis of the last prescription between November 2002 and May 2003.

Results: We reviewed 436 CH, of which 395 made up the study group. 71.4% (SD, 66.9-75.8) were women. Average age was 51.4 (SD, 49.2-53.6). Classification of asthma as function of gravity was: intermittent (IA): 30% (25.7-34.3); light persistent (LPA): 24.8% (20.7-28.8); moderate persistent (MPA): 30.7% (26.4-35.1); serious persistent (SPA): 5.05% (3.19-7.54). Unclassified: 9.4% (6.83-12.5). Correct treatment: IA, 69.5% (61.6-77.4); LPA, 22.2% (14.4-30.1); MPA, 46.2% (7.8-54.7); SPA, 72.7% (49.8-89.3). The most common cause of incorrect treatment in all kinds of asthma was the use of international criteria (IC) at inadequate doses: IA, 47.5% (31.5-63.9); LPA, 73.8% (63.1-82.8); MPA, 38.9% (27.6-51.1); SPA, 33.3% (4.3-77.7). The scant use of B2CD.AD was noticeable: IA, 47.5% (31.5-63.9); LPA, 85.7% (76.4-92.4); MPA, 86.7% (74.3-92.1); SPA, 66.7% (22.3-95.7). The most commonly used active principles were salbutamol, salmeterol, budesonide, and montelukast. On overall measurement of good treatment, we found that 48.9% (n = 193) of patients had a correct prescription.

Conclusions: In primary care, light forms of asthma are most commonly monitored. We found low concordance with the GINA 2002 directives. IC are widely used, but often at incorrect doses. We insist on the importance of classifying asthma according to its gravity in order to prescribe the right treatment.

Objetivo: Comprobar si el tratamiento de los asmáticos de nuestro centro coincide con los criterios internacionales (GINA 2002).

Diseño: Estudio descriptivo, transversal.

Emplazamiento: Equipo de atención primaria urbano.

Participantes: Asmáticos mayores de 14 años.

Mediciones principales: Revisión de historias clínicas (HCAP) y análisis de la última prescripción entre noviembre de 2002 y mayo de 2003.

Resultados: Se revisan 436 HCAP, de las que 395 constituyeron el grupo de estudio. El 71,4% (DE, 66,9-75,8) eran mujeres, conuna edad media de 51,4 años (DE, 49,2- 53,6). Clasificación del asma en función de la gravedad: intermitente (AI) 30%; persistente leve (APL) 24,8%; persistente moderada (APM) 30,7%; persistente grave (APG) 5,05%, no clasificado 9,4%. Tratamiento correcto: AI, 69,5%; APL, 22,2%; APM, 46,2%; APG, 72,7%. La causa más frecuente de tratamiento incorrecto en todos los tipos de asma es el uso de corticoides inhalados (CI) en dosis inadecuadas: AI, 47,5%; APL, 73,8%; APM, 38,9%; APG, 33,3%. Destaca el escaso uso de agonistas betaadrenérgicos de corta duración B2CD: AI, 47,5%; APL, 85,7%; APM, 86,7%; APG, 66,7%. Los principios activos más utilizados fueron: salbutamol, salmeterol, budesonida y montelukast. Como medida global de buen tratamiento, un 48,9% (n = 193) de pacientes tenía una adecuada prescripción.

Conclusiones: Predominan las formas leves de asma controladas en atención primaria y se observa poca concordancia con las directrices GINA 2002.

Los CI son ampliamente usados, pero destaca su incorrecta dosificación. Se considera muy importante clasificar el asma según su gravedad para prescribir el tratamiento adecuado.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Global Iniciative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention Revised 2002. NHLBI/WHO Workshop Report. National Institute of Health Publication No. 02-3659.
    1. Flor X., García T., Juvanteny J., Llauger M.A., Mas M., Moretó A. Societat Catalana de Medicina Familiar i Comunitària; Barcelona: 2001. Educació sanitaria en asma.
    1. Segura N., Villagran G., Vázquez L., Del Rivero L., Olvera J., Espínola G. The Use of International Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma (GINA) in clinical practice among family physicians. Rev Alerg Nex. 2001;48:159–162. - PubMed
    1. Courtney C. Clinical Practice Guidelines vs Actual Clinical Practice. The asthma paradigm. Chest. 2000;118:S62–S64. - PubMed
    1. Boulet L.P., Becker A., Berubé D., Beveridge R., Ernst P. On behalf of the Canadian Asthma Consensus Group. Summary of recommendations from the Canadian Asthma Consensus report, 1999. CMAJ. 1999;161(11 Suppl):S1–S12. - PMC - PubMed

Substances