Skorup Paul, Rizzo Luiz Vicente, Machado-Boman Lavinia, Janson Christer
Section for Infectious Diseases, Department of Medical Science, Akademiska Sjukhuset, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Clin Respir J. 2009 Jan;3(1):22-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-699X.2008.00103.x.
The Global Initiative Against Asthma (GINA) was developed to meet the global challenge of asthma. GINA has been adopted in most countries and comparison of asthma management in different parts of the world may be of help when assessing the global dissemination of the guideline. The overall goals in GINA include that asthma patients should be free of symptoms, acute asthma attacks and activity limitations. The aim of the present study was to compare asthma management and asthma control in São Paulo, Brazil and Uppsala, Sweden.
Information was collected from asthmatics in São Paulo and Uppsala with a questionnaire. The questionnaire dealt with the following issues: symptoms, smoking, self-management, hospital visits, effect on school/work and medication.
The São Paulo patients were more likely to have uncontrolled asthma (36% vs 13%, P < 0.001), having made emergency room visits (57% vs 29%, P < 0.001) and having lost days at school or work because of their asthma (46% vs 28%, P = 0.03) than the asthmatics from Uppsala. There were no difference in the use of inhaled corticosteroids, but the Brazilian patients were more likely to be using theophylline (18% vs 1%, P = 0.001) and less likely to be using long-acting beta-2 agonists (18% vs 37%, P < 0.001).
We conclude that the level of asthma control was lower among the patients from São Paulo than Uppsala. Few of the patients in either city reached the goals set up by GINA. Improved asthma management may therefore lead to health-economic benefits in both locations.
全球哮喘防治创议(GINA)旨在应对哮喘这一全球性挑战。大多数国家都采用了GINA,在评估该指南在全球的推广情况时,比较世界不同地区的哮喘管理情况可能会有所帮助。GINA的总体目标包括哮喘患者应无症状、无急性哮喘发作且无活动受限。本研究的目的是比较巴西圣保罗和瑞典乌普萨拉的哮喘管理与哮喘控制情况。
通过问卷调查收集圣保罗和乌普萨拉哮喘患者的信息。问卷涉及以下问题:症状、吸烟、自我管理、就医情况、对学习/工作的影响以及用药情况。
与乌普萨拉的哮喘患者相比,圣保罗的患者更易出现哮喘控制不佳(36% 对13%,P < 0.001)、进行急诊就诊(57% 对29%,P < 0.001)以及因哮喘而耽误学习或工作天数(46% 对28%,P = 0.03)。吸入性糖皮质激素的使用情况无差异,但巴西患者更可能使用茶碱(18% 对1%,P = 0.001),而使用长效β2受体激动剂的可能性较小(18% 对37%,P < 0.001)。
我们得出结论,圣保罗患者的哮喘控制水平低于乌普萨拉。两个城市中几乎没有患者达到GINA设定的目标。因此,改善哮喘管理可能会在这两个地区带来健康经济效益。