Ng T P
Department of Community, Occupational and Family Medicine, National University of Singapore.
Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Jan;50(450):7-12.
Symptom and pulmonary function measures of asthma severity are used for severity classification in practice guidelines. However, there is limited methodological evidence in support of their validity and utility.
To validate initial symptom and forced expiratory volume (FEV1) measures of asthma severity with the subsequent risks of exacerbations resulting in emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalisation, and sickness absence from work. In addition, symptom-based measures of change in asthma severity were also evaluated against the concurrent risks of asthma exacerbations.
A cohort of 361 adult asthmatic patients in general outpatient clinics was studied. At initial interview, frequencies of asthmatic symptoms and nocturnal exacerbations, FEV1, and a severity score combining these measures, were recorded. At re-interview in the third year, the frequencies of asthma exacerbations resulting in ER visits, hospitalisation, and sickness absence, and a self-assessed global measure of change in severity and serially-assessed change in symptom frequencies, were measured.
All individual symptom and FEV1 measures were strongly related to the subsequent risks of ER visits, hospitalisation, and sick absence. A severity score of more than 3 (moderate to severe asthma) and self-assessed change in asthma severity were most strongly and significantly associated with greatly increased risks of all outcomes. Individual symptoms and FEV1 measures alone did not show high sensitivities, but the severity score combining these measures gave much more satisfactory validity. Perhaps not surprisingly, self-assessed change in asthma appeared to give the most satisfactory validity.
These results support the validity and clinical utility of a simple clinical score based on symptom and FEV1 measures, and self-assessed measure of change in severity, for risk classification in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.
哮喘严重程度的症状和肺功能指标用于实践指南中的严重程度分类。然而,支持其有效性和实用性的方法学证据有限。
验证哮喘严重程度的初始症状和用力呼气量(FEV1)指标与随后导致急诊就诊、住院和病假的加重风险之间的关系。此外,还根据哮喘加重的并发风险评估了基于症状的哮喘严重程度变化指标。
对361名普通门诊成年哮喘患者进行队列研究。在初次访谈时,记录哮喘症状和夜间加重的频率、FEV1以及结合这些指标的严重程度评分。在第三年的再次访谈中,测量导致急诊就诊、住院和病假的哮喘加重频率,以及自我评估的严重程度总体变化和症状频率的连续评估变化。
所有个体症状和FEV1指标均与随后的急诊就诊、住院和病假风险密切相关。严重程度评分超过3(中度至重度哮喘)和自我评估的哮喘严重程度变化与所有结局风险大幅增加的相关性最强且最显著。单独的个体症状和FEV1指标敏感性不高,但结合这些指标的严重程度评分具有更令人满意的有效性。也许不足为奇的是,自我评估的哮喘变化似乎具有最令人满意的有效性。
这些结果支持基于症状和FEV1指标以及自我评估的严重程度变化的简单临床评分在当代临床实践指南中进行风险分类的有效性和临床实用性。