Peter G. Gibson

Bio: Peter G. Gibson is an academic researcher from University of Newcastle. The author has contributed to research in topics: Asthma & Sputum. The author has an hindex of 103, co-authored 711 publications receiving 45722 citations. Previous affiliations of Peter G. Gibson include University of Sydney & National Health and Medical Research Council.

Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary.

Abstract: Asthma is a serious health problem throughout the world During the past two decades, many scientific advances have improved our understanding of asthma and ability to manage and control it effectively However, recommendations for asthma care need to be adapted to local conditions, resources and services Since it was formed in 1993, the Global Initiative for Asthma, a network of individuals, organisations and public health officials, has played a leading role in disseminating information about the care of patients with asthma based on a process of continuous review of published scientific investigations A comprehensive workshop report entitled "A Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention", first published in 1995, has been widely adopted, translated and reproduced, and forms the basis for many national guidelines The 2006 report contains important new themes First, it asserts that "it is reasonable to expect that in most patients with asthma, control of the disease can and should be achieved and maintained," and recommends a change in approach to asthma management, with asthma control, rather than asthma severity, being the focus of treatment decisions The importance of the patient-care giver partnership and guided self-management, along with setting goals for treatment, are also emphasised

International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma

Abstract: Severe or therapy-resistant asthma is increasingly recognised as a major unmet need. A Task Force, supported by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, reviewed the definition and provided recommendations and guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of severe asthma in children and adults. A literature review was performed, followed by discussion by an expert committee according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for development of specific clinical recommendations. When the diagnosis of asthma is confirmed and comorbidities addressed, severe asthma is defined as asthma that requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller and/or systemic corticosteroids to prevent it from becoming “uncontrolled” or that remains “uncontrolled” despite this therapy. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition consisting of phenotypes such as eosinophilic asthma. Specific recommendations on the use of sputum eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide to guide therapy, as well as treatment with anti-IgE antibody, methotrexate, macrolide antibiotics, antifungal agents and bronchial thermoplasty are provided. Coordinated research efforts for improved phenotyping will provide safe and effective biomarker-driven approaches to severe asthma therapy.

An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: asthma control and exacerbations: standardizing endpoints for clinical asthma trials and clinical practice.

Abstract: Background: The assessment of asthma control is pivotal to the evaluation of treatment response in individuals and in clinical trials. Previously, asthma control, severity, and exacerbations were defined and assessed in many different ways.Purpose: The Task Force was established to provide recommendations about standardization of outcomes relating to asthma control, severity, and exacerbations in clinical trials and clinical practice, for adults and children aged 6 years or older.Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted to evaluate the measurement properties and strengths/weaknesses of outcome measures relevant to asthma control and exacerbations. The review focused on diary variables, physiologic measurements, composite scores, biomarkers, quality of life questionnaires, and indirect measures.Results: The Task Force developed new definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance. In view of current knowledge ...

Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma

Abstract: Background A key component of many asthma management guidelines is the recommendation for patient education and regular medical review. A number of controlled trials have been conducted to measure the effectiveness of asthma education programmes. These programmes improve patient knowledge, but their impact on health outcomes is less well established. This review was conducted to examine the strength of evidence supporting Step 6 of the Australian Asthma Management Plan: "Educate and Review Regularly"; to test whether health outcomes are influenced by education and self-management programmes. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effects of asthma self-management programmes, when coupled with regular health practitioner review, on health outcomes in adults with asthma. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised trials of self-management education in adults over 16 years of age with asthma. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. We contacted study authors for confirmation. Main results We included thirty six trials, which compared self-management education with usual care. Self-management education reduced hospitalisations (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.82); emergency room visits (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94); unscheduled visits to the doctor (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81); days off work or school (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.93); nocturnal asthma (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.0.56 to 0.79); and quality of life (standard mean difference 0.29,CI 0.11 to 0.47). Measures of lung function were little changed. Authors' conclusions Education in asthma self-management which involves self-monitoring by either peak expiratory flow or symptoms, coupled with regular medical review and a written action plan improves health outcomes for adults with asthma. Training programmes that enable people to adjust their medication using a written action plan appear to be more effective than other forms of asthma self-management.

Use of induced sputum cell counts to investigate airway inflammation in asthma.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Airway inflammation is considered to be important in asthma but is relatively inaccessible to study. Less invasive methods of obtaining sputum from patients unable to produce it spontaneously should provide a useful investigational tool in asthma. METHODS: A method to induce sputum with inhaled hypertonic saline was modified for use in 17 asthmatic patients and 17 normal subjects who could not produce sputum spontaneously. The success rate and safety of the method, the reproducibility of cell counts, and differences in cell counts between the asthmatic and normal groups were examined. Hypertonic saline solution 3-5% was inhaled for up to 30 minutes after inhalation of salbutamol. Subjects were asked to expectorate sputum every five minutes. The quality of the sample was scored on the volume of plugs and the extent of salivary contamination. Plugs from the lower respiratory tract were selected for a total cell count and for differential cell counts of eosinophils and metachromatic cells (mast cells and basophils) in direct smears. RESULTS: Adequate samples from the lower respiratory tract were obtained in 76% of first attempts. The mean fall in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) during inhalation of saline was 5.3% and the maximum fall 20%. Eosinophil and metachromatic cell counts were reproducible (reliability coefficient 0.8 and 0.7 respectively). When compared with sputum from normal subjects sputum from asthmatic patients contained a significantly higher proportion of eosinophils (mean 18.5% (SE 3.8%) v 1.9% (0.6%)) and metachromatic cells (0.50% (0.18%) v 0.039% (0.014%)). In the asthmatic group the differential eosinophil count correlated with the baseline FEV1. CONCLUSION: Induced sputum is capable of detecting differences in cell counts between normal and asthmatic subjects and merits further development as a potential means of assessing airway inflammation in asthma.

Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary.

Abstract: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a major public health problem. It is the fourth leading cause of chronic morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is projected to rank fifth in 2020 in burden of disease worldwide, according to a study published by the World Bank/World Health Organization. Yet, COPD remains relatively unknown or ignored by the public as well as public health and government officials. In 1998, in an effort to bring more attention to COPD, its management, and its prevention, a committed group of scientists encouraged the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the World Health Organization to form the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Among the important objectives of GOLD are to increase awareness of COPD and to help the millions of people who suffer from this disease and die prematurely of it or its complications. The first step in the GOLD program was to prepare a consensus report, Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, published in 2001. The present, newly revised document follows the same format as the original consensus report, but has been updated to reflect the many publications on COPD that have appeared. GOLD national leaders, a network of international experts, have initiated investigations of the causes and prevalence of COPD in their countries, and developed innovative approaches for the dissemination and implementation of COPD management guidelines. We appreciate the enormous amount of work the GOLD national leaders have done on behalf of their patients with COPD. Despite the achievements in the 5 years since the GOLD report was originally published, considerable additional work is ahead of us if we are to control this major public health problem. The GOLD initiative will continue to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, but a concerted effort by all involved in health care will be necessary.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.