This study was designed to answer three main questions: 1) Does asthma self-management education reduce asthma morbidity? 2) Are the two programmes "Living With Asthma" and "Open Airways" equally effective in doing so? 3) Is a shortened version of these programmes (4 weeks) as effective as the longer original programme (8 weeks)?Twelve Italian centres of paediatric bronchopneumology selected 312 children with asthma, who were stratified by disease severity, gender and age, and then randomly assigned to an Experimental group which received an educational programme or to a Comparison group, which did not. Of the 312 children selected, 209 (114 Experimental and 95 Comparison) completed the educational protocol and a 1 year follow-up.Data recorded during the last 2 months of follow-up, 10 months after the educational intervention, showed that the Experimental group required significantly fewer emergency treatments: this reduction was more evident in the more severe asthma cases. In the Experimental, but not in the Comparison group, patients with more severe asthma consumed more medications than patients with milder asthma. "Open Airways" yielded, in some cases, better results than "Living with Asthma": but a type 2 error is possible. The standard and the shortened programmes proved equally effective.In conclusion, following education, regardless of receiving a short or long educational programme, asthma patients use emergency care services less and use medications more appropriately in comparison with standard care without education. This suggests that short educational programmes can be highly cost-effective in children with asthma.

Duovent activity was compared with placebo in a double-blind study carried out in 20 children, aged between 5 and 14 years, suffering from bronchial asthma. The experiment lasted 2 weeks. The patients were divided into two groups. In the 1st week, group I was treated with Duovent and group II with placebo, in the 2nd week vice versa. There was no reduction in cough or dyspnea in subjects treated with placebo, and only a slight increase (not significant) in peak expiratory flow (PEF). In the subjects treated with Duovent, there was a clear reduction in cough and dyspnea and a significant increase in PEF. The effect of the drug was still evident after 8 h, and it was well tolerated without side effects. The high number of additional sprays required during the placebo period was further evidence of the therapeutic efficacy of Duovent, which in almost all cases met the daily therapeutic requirements of the small patients. Duovent appears to be an effective drug in the treatment of bronchial asthma in children, both clinically and functionally.