RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: There is no standard definition of asthma for epidemiological purposes; most surveys use symptoms and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Few studies tested mannitol challenge test (MCT) in occupational settings. We sought to determine efficacy and safety of MCT in detecting subjects with asthma symptoms in the workplace. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we recruited 908 workers in 2 universities; they underwent a respiratory questionnaire, spirometry, skin prick tests, and MCT. RESULTS: Eight hundred and eleven subjects completed the study; 11.1% had a positive MCT; 8.14% had asthma. MCT had low sensitivity (35.4-61.9%) but high specificity (90.2-94.9%) to detect symptomatic individuals. The most prevalent symptom was wheezing in the last 12 months. Twenty-four of those with a positive MCT (26.7%) had no positive replies to the questions on asthma symptoms. Among subjects with a positive MCT, 71.9% achieved 95% of baseline FEV1 after 15 minutes of salbutamol recovery treatment. Nine subjects (1.1%) had adverse events that prevented the test from being completed. CONCLUSIONS: MCT has high specificity but low sensitivity to detect symptomatic subjects in the workplace. It may detect subjects with hyperresponsiveness but no symptoms, who could be at risk of developing airway diseases. The test is safe and well tolerated.
Asunto(s)
Asma/diagnóstico , Asma/epidemiología , Manitol/administración & dosificación , Lugar de Trabajo , Adulto , Animales , Animales de Laboratorio/inmunología , Brasil/epidemiología , Hiperreactividad Bronquial/diagnóstico , Pruebas de Provocación Bronquial/métodos , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad Inmediata/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad Inmediata/epidemiología , Pruebas Intradérmicas , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Exposición Profesional , Prevalencia , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Espirometría , UniversidadesRESUMEN
Information for patients provided by the pharmacist is reflected in adhesion to treatment, clinical results and patient quality of life. The objective of this study was to assess an asthma self-management model for rational medicine use. This was a randomized controlled trial with 60 asthmatic patients assigned to attend five modules presented by a pharmacist (intervention group) and 59 patients in the control group. Data collection was performed before and after this 4-month intervention and included an evaluation of asthma knowledge, lifestyle, inhaler techniques, adhesion to treatment, pulmonary function and quality of life. An economic viability analysis was also performed. The intervention group obtained an increase in asthma knowledge scores of 58.3-79.5% (P < 0.001). In this group, there was also an increase in the number of individuals who practiced physical exercise (36-43%), in the number of correct replies regarding the use of inhalers, in the percentage of adherent patients, and in quality of life scores for all domains. We concluded that this asthma self-management model was effective in improving the quality of life of asthma patients.