You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 153 No. 7, 12 APR 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Review Articles
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Approaches to Asthma Management

Realities and Recommendations

James P. Kemp, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(7):805-812.


Abstract

As asthma prevalence continues to increase, so does its impact on public health and on health care systems. Despite the prescription of more antiasthma medications than ever before, morbidity and mortality associated with asthma continue to increase. The focus of asthma therapy is changing, with a greater emphasis on control of the inflammatory rather than the bronchoconstrictive component. Several sets of guidelines recently developed by groups of asthma specialists clearly reflect this new focus. While such recommendations are intended to help physicians more accurately diagnose asthma by severity and better manage its symptoms, uniformity in both areas is lacking. Disparities are seen not only among physicians overall but also among primary care physicians compared with subspecialists. New survey data help to illustrate how reality—the clinical approaches of these physician subgroups—differs from current recommendations. Physicians who treat patients with asthma may find that their approaches are in agreement with those of their peers. Nonetheless, they may also find that they deviate from guidelines that could improve clinical outcome for a substantial number of patients with asthma.

(Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:805-812)



Author Affiliations

From the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, and the Allergy and Asthma Medical Group and Research Center, San Diego.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Comparing Generalist and Specialty Care: Discrepancies, Deficiencies, and Excesses
Donohoe
Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1596-1608.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Guidelines and Realities of Asthma Management: The Philadelphia Story
Lang et al.
Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1193-1200.
ABSTRACT  

The Need to Educate Health Professionals About Childhood Asthma
Amirav and Burg
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1994;148:1339-1343.
ABSTRACT  

The Appropriate Degree of Diagnostic Certainty
Thibault
NEJM 1994;331:1216-1220.
FULL TEXT  

Implications of Generalists' Slow Adoption of Zidovudine in Clinical Practice
Markson et al.
Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1497-1504.
ABSTRACT  

Asthma Management: Don't Forget Occupational Asthma
Donoghue
Arch Intern Med 1994;154:457-457.
ABSTRACT  

Asthma Management: Don't Forget Occupational Asthma-Reply
Kemp
Arch Intern Med 1994;154:457-461.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1993 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.