Asthma management and asthma control in Sao Paulo, Brazil and Uppsala, Sweden: a questionnaire-based comparison

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 Sao Paulo, Brazil and Uppsala, Sweden. Information was collected from asthmatics in Sao 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 Sao 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 Sao 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. Please cite this paper as: Skorup P, Rizzo LV, Machado-Boman L and Janson C. Asthma management and asthma control in Sao Paulo, Brazil and Uppsala, Sweden: a questionnaire-based comparison. The Clinical Respiratory Journal 2009; 3: 22-28.

PAIN IN FIBROMYALGIA AND DISCRIMINATIVE POWER OF THE INSTRUMENTS: VISUAL ANALOG SCALE, DOLORIMETRY AND THE MCGILL PAIN QUESTIONNAIRE

Objective: The aim of this study was to verify the discriminative power of the most widely used pain assessment instruments. Methods: The sample consisted of 279 subjects divided into Fibromyalgia Group (FM- 205 patients with fibromyalgia) and Control Group (CG-74 healthy subjects), mean age 49.29 +/- 10.76 years. Only 9 subjects were male, 6 in FM and 3 in CG. FM were outpatients from the Rheumatology Clinic of the University of Sao Paulo - Hospital das Clinicas (HCFMUSP); the CG included people accompanying patients and hospital staff with similar socio-demographic characteristics. Three instruments were used to assess pain: the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Dolorimetry, to measure pain threshold on tender points (generating the TP index). In order to assess the discriminative power of the instruments, the measurements obtained were submitted to descriptive analysis and inferential analysis using ROC Curve - sensibility (S), specificity (S I) and area under the curve (AUC) - and Contingence tables with Chi-square Test and odds ratio. Significance level was 0.05. Results: Higher sensibility, specificity and area under the curve was obtained by VAS (80%, 80% and 0.864, respectively), followed by Dolorimetry (S 77%, S177% and AUC 0.851), McGill Sensory (S 72%, S167% and AUC 0.765) and McGill Affective (S 69%, S1 67% and AUC 0.753). Conclusions: VAS presented the higher sensibility, specificity and AUC, showing the greatest discriminative power among the instruments. However, these values are considerably similar to those of Dolorimetry.