Department of Pediatrics, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Center of Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
J Asthma. 2021 May;58(5):596-603. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2020.1723621. Epub 2020 Feb 6.
To assess whether an asthma intervention program reduces treatment days outside the home among children with severe asthma receiving comprehensive care (CC) in our center. Between October 21, 2014 and September 28, 2016, children with severe asthma were randomized to receive CC alone ( = 29) or CC plus the asthma intervention program ( = 34) which involved collaboration with pharmacists and school nurses, motivational interviewing, and tracking the one-second forced expiratory volume at home. All patients were followed through March 31, 2017. Frequentist and Bayesian intent-to-treat analyses were performed. The asthma intervention program doubled the telephone calls between the staff and families (753 vs 356 per 100 child years for the intervention group vs. control group; Rate Ratio [RR], 2.11 [95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.45]). Yet, we found no evidence that it reduced the composite number of days of healthcare outside home which includes: clinic visits, ED visits, and hospital admissions (1179 vs 958 per 100 child-years in the intervention group vs. control group; [RR], 1.23 [95% CI, 0.82-1.84]) or secondary outcomes which are individual components (clinic visits, ED visits, hospitalizations, PICU admissions and school absences; RR 1.15 - 2.30; > 0.05). Bayesian analysis indicated a 67% probability that the intervention program increases total treatment days outside the home and only a 14% probability of a true decrease of >20% as originally hypothesized. A multi-component intervention program provided to children with severe asthma failed to reduce and may have increased days of healthcare outside home and school absenteeism.
评估哮喘干预计划是否能减少在我们中心接受综合护理(CC)的严重哮喘儿童的家庭外治疗天数。2014 年 10 月 21 日至 2016 年 9 月 28 日,将严重哮喘患儿随机分为单独接受 CC( = 29)或 CC 加哮喘干预计划( = 34),该计划包括与药剂师和学校护士合作、进行动机访谈以及在家中跟踪一秒用力呼气量。所有患者均随访至 2017 年 3 月 31 日。进行了频率论和贝叶斯意向治疗分析。哮喘干预计划使工作人员与家庭之间的电话次数增加了一倍(干预组每 100 个儿童年的电话次数为 753 次,而对照组为 356 次;率比 [RR],2.11 [95%置信区间,1.29-3.45])。然而,我们没有发现证据表明它减少了包括:门诊就诊、急诊就诊和住院治疗在内的家庭外医疗保健天数的综合数量(干预组每 100 个儿童年为 1179 天,而对照组为 958 天;RR,1.23 [95%CI,0.82-1.84])或次要结果(门诊就诊、急诊就诊、住院治疗、PICU 住院和学校缺勤;RR 1.15-2.30;>0.05)。贝叶斯分析表明,干预计划增加家庭外总治疗天数的可能性为 67%,而最初假设的减少>20%的可能性仅为 14%。为严重哮喘儿童提供的多组分干预计划未能减少,并且可能增加了家庭外和学校缺勤的医疗保健天数。