0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Articles |

Using Quality-Control Analysis of Peak Expiratory Flow Recordings To Guide Therapy for Asthma

Peter G. Gibson, MBBS, FRACP; John Wlodarczyk, PhD; Michael J. Hensley, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, FAFPHM; Keith Murree-Allen, MBBS, FRACP, FCCP; Leslie G. BSc(Med) Olson, MBBS, PhD, FRACP; and Nicholas Saltos, MBBS, FRACP, FCCP, FRCP
[+] Article and Author Information

From John Hunter Hospital, the University of Newcastle, and Royal Newcastle Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. Acknowledgments: The authors thank the educators in the Asthma Management Service: Sr. P. Talbot, Sr. R. Toneguzzi, Sr. C. Kessell, and Mrs. P. Pratt. They also thank Gaye Sheather for secretarial assistance. Grant Support: In part by the Asthma Foundation of New South Wales. Requests for Reprints: Peter G. Gibson, Respiratory Medicine Unit, John Hunter Hospital, Locked Bag 1, Hunter Mail Exchange, Newcastle 2310, New South Wales, Australia. Current Author Addresses: Drs. Gibson, Murree-Allen, Olson, and Saltos: Respiratory Medicine Unit, John Hunter Hospital, Locked Bag 1, Hunter Mail Exchange, Newcastle 2310, New South Wales, Australia.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1995;123(7):488-492. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-123-7-199510010-00002
Text Size: A A A

Objective: To compare the action points in published asthma management plans with those derived from quality-control analysis of peak expiratory flow recordings.

Design: Longitudinal observational study.

Setting: An ambulatory asthma education and management program in a tertiary care hospital.

Patients: 35 adults with asthma and exacerbation of asthma.

Measurements: Peak expiratory flow diaries and symptom recordings.

Results: Asthma action points from published asthma management guidelines had poor operating characteristics. The success rate was 35% when the action point was a peak expiratory flow rate less than 60% of the patient's best peak flow. The success rate improved to 88% when the action point was a peak expiratory flow rate less than 80% of the patient's best peak flow. Published action points had a high failure rate. Peak flow decreased to below the published action points during a stable period of asthma in 7% to 51% of patients studied. Action points defined using quality-control analysis did significantly better. A peak flow value less than 3 standard deviations below the patient's mean peak flow detected 84% of exacerbations and had a low failure rate (19%). Other quality-control tests had sensitivities of 91% and 71%. Quality-control action points could detect exacerbations up to 4.5 days earlier than conventional methods.

Conclusions: Individualized action points can be derived for patients with asthma by applying quality-control analysis to peak flow recordings. These action points are more sensitive in detecting exacerbations of asthma and have fewer false-positive results. Action plans developed in this manner should be more useful for the early detection of deteriorating asthma.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1.
An example of a quality-control chart (x-bar chart) of peak expiratory flow recordings from a patient with asthma.

The mean daily peak expiratory flow is plotted on the y-axis. The lower control limit (LCL) is defined by quality-control analysis as 3 standard deviations below the mean peak flow value for the baseline period and is shown as a solid line. An asthma exacerbation was detected by conventional methods on day 18. The quality-control action points (tests 1, 2, and 3) were reached several days earlier. The day that the quality-control action point was first reached is shown by the number of that action point. For example, test 1 was first reached on day 16. Test 2 was first reached on day 13, which was 5 days before the detection of exacerbation by conventional methods.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.
Performance characteristics of published action points (●) and action points derived from quality-control analysis of peak expiratory flow (PEF) records (*).P

The action point derived using quality-control analysis (test 2) was significantly better than published peak flow points (PEF < 80% of that predicted and PEF < 60% of that predicted; < 0.002).

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Clinical efficacy of web-based versus standard asthma self-management. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2012;22(1):28-34.

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)