Blood eosinophil counts to guide asthma care in primary care clinics
Compares care guided by blood eosinophil counts with usual care in mild to moderate asthma.
Plain-language title generated from the registry record
Registry title: Blood Eosinophil Guided Versus Usual Care In The Management Of Mild To Moderate Asthma at Primary Care (BEAM)
Key facts
- Where
- Singapore, SingaporeSee the site
Could this be for you?
Answer for yourself. This is not a decision: only the study team can say whether you can take part.
- Are you between 21 and 65 years old?
Source: NCT07486401, who can take part
Where in Singapore
- National Healthcare Group PolyclinicsSingapore, SingaporeTaking people
Questions to ask the study team
- How often do I need to come in, and for how long each time?
- Are travel costs paid?
- Can I keep my own doctor?
- What happens if I want to stop?
Trial details
- Who runs it
- National Healthcare Group Polyclinics
- Trial code
- NCT07486401
- Record updated
- 20 March 2026
- Original description
The aim of this study is to evaluate usual care versus biomarker-directed care (using blood eosinophil counts) for the management of asthma patients in primary care setting.Read full original descriptionShow less
Randomised Controlled Trial Of Blood Eosinophil Guided Versus Usual Care In The Management Of Mild To Moderate Asthma at Primary Care (BEAM)
The aim of this study is to evaluate usual care versus biomarker-directed care (using blood eosinophil counts) for the management of asthma patients in primary care setting.
The study hypothesizes that BEC is a valuable biomarker that can guide asthma treatment, and result in reduction in asthma exacerbations, better symptom control and improvement in quality of life compared to usual arm in mild to moderate asthma patients in the primary care setting.
Researchers would compare using blood eosinophil count guided to usual care to see if biomarker-directed asthma treatment and management
Inclusion: Singaporeans or Singapore Permanent Residents; Patients aged ≥21 to 65 years old; Physician diagnosed asthma for duration of at least 4 weeks; On or will be initiated on Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2025 step 1-3) treatment; No asthma exacerbations* in the preceding 4 weeks before randomisation; Able and willing to attend study appointments approximately every 4-monthly over a 1-year period; Able to provide informed consent; Stable cardiovascular status (i.e. controlled hypertension, no active symptoms of heart disease or arrhythmias) *Exacerbations are defined as worsening of asthma symptoms requiring systemic corticosteroid for 3 or more days, emergency department visit, or hospitalization.
Exclusion: Current use of long-term immunosuppression, LTRA receptor antagonist (Montelukast) and Theophylline or long-term oral steroids; Use of oral, rectal, or parenteral glucocorticoid within 30 days and/or depot parenteral glucocorticoid within 12 weeks prior to recruitment; History of life-threatening asthma requiring intubation or intensive care unit admission; Presence of other known causes of eosinophilia besides asthma (e.g. parasitic infection), based on physician's discretion and investigation as per clinical practice and suspicion; Known diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Interstitial lung disease or bronchiectasis; Any significant disease or disorder (eg. Cardiovascular, pulmonary other than asthma, gastrointestinal, hepatic, renal, neurological, musculoskeletal, endocrine, metabolic, malignant, psychiatric, major physical impairment) which, in the opinion of the investigator, may either put the patient at risk because of participation in the study, or may influence the results of the study, or the patient's ability to participate in the study; Severe asthma or difficult to treat asthma; Current use of beta-blocking agents including eye-drops; Current enrolment in other interventional clinical trial for asthma; Female subjects who are pregnant or planning pregnancy during the study period; Planned travel outside of the country for ≥16 consecutive weeks during the study; Investigator's assessment of poor capability of following study instructions or comply with study procedures.