Search

Objectives: Asthma is the leading chronic disease of the child; control and treatment remain inadequate. Our objective was to assess whether the use of the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C -ACT) in primary care had an impact on adapting therapy., Methods: The study was quantitative prospective and compared 2 groups of general practioners. All had the same reminders about childhood asthma management. The C-ACT was detailed to one group only. Doctors in the control group had to work as usual without C-ACT. Doctors included asthmatic children aged 6 to 11 years who were consulting for their asthma or any other reason. The primary endpoint was the adaptation of asthma treatment according to the Global Initative for Asthma (GINA). Evaluations of the control group were compared with the after consultation self-administered online C-ACT., Results: From April to October 2014, 61 physicians included 179 patients in two comparable groups. Although not significant statistically, doctors using C-ACT found 45% of uncontrolled asthma (vs. 31%). When the reason for consultation was not related to asthma, the figure was 25% (vs. 15%). Doctors using the C-ACT made twice less therapeutic adaptations not recommended by the GINA: 8% vs. 16%. 25% of evaluations of doctors in the control group were discordant with the internet C-ACT. After correction with the internet C-ACT of these imprecise initial assessments, the figure was 25%: 3 times more than in the C-ACT group (P=0.014)., Conclusion: The use in primary care of C-ACT should allow a better assessment of asthma control and adaptation of treatment in children., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Allergen immunotherapy is a recognised intervention in patients with allergies not responding to standard pharmacotherapy or in whom pharmacotherapy is contraindicated. We describe the sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) regimens used in children and adolescents with house dust mite (HDM) respiratory allergies in France and assess the efficacy and safety of this treatment., Methods: This was a sub-analysis of paediatric patients included in a previous retrospective, observational, multicentre study. Inclusion criteria were: age 5-17 years; respiratory allergy and proven sensitisation to HDM; at least 2 years follow-up after SLIT initiation. The following data were recorded at SLIT initiation: clinical characteristics; sensitisation profile; concomitant symptomatic medications; details of SLIT protocol. During follow-up and at the end of treatment the following data were recorded: any changes to SLIT treatment; any changes to symptomatic medications; symptom progression; adverse events. SLIT efficacy, patient compliance and satisfaction, and safety were assessed., Results: 736 paediatric patients were included in this analysis. Most patients (95.5%) had allergic rhinitis, which was moderate to severe persistent in 62.8%. Allergic asthma was present in 64.0% and was mild to moderate persistent in 52.7% of these patients. The majority of patients had rhinitis with asthma (59.5%). Three-hundred and seventy five (62.3%) patients were polysensitised. Compliance was good in 86.5% of patients and SLIT was effective in 83.8%. Symptoms of rhinitis and asthma were improved in 64.6% and 64.3% of patients, respectively. A decrease in symptomatic medication was observed following SLIT initiation in patients with rhinitis and/or asthma. SLIT was well tolerated with mainly local reactions reported., Conclusions: HDM SLIT appears to be effective in children and adolescents with rhinitis and/or asthma due to HDM allergens, with no tolerability issues and similar benefits as in adults.